DD,
Thanks for the detailed information; I'm about to look through it. I appreciate the effort toward objectivity! As to your following points...
1. It may indeed be the intent of the courts to protect rather than kill religion in all of its forms. It still seems, though, to foster the view that there is something "wrong" about expressing religion or faith (they aren't really the same, are they?) in public if it is too innappropriate to allow in school or at athletic events. If a coach or other representative of the state were to encourage one religious viewpoint while discouraging or demeaning another, then THAT would be something the Constitution is in place to protect against. I've always been of the belief that even if you don't share a person's faith, you should respect their right to it, as long as it doesn't bring harm to others. Sadly, yes, there are people who would abuse the privilege, and I guess the courts believe that the only way to prevent a few from abusing a freedom is to take it away from all. To me it seems like just another instance of "zero tolerance" philosophy; a coach sitting in by invitation on a student-led prayer in the huddle is the equivalent of mandatory prayer legislated by the government, just like a second-grader's butter knife packed in his lunch by a well-intentioned mother carries the same penalty as a switchblade in the pocket of a troubled teenager.
2. I personally do not lead prayers in the huddle nor marches on Washington. I have had teams who have requested to say a few words of prayer (student-led) for an injury-free game played with good hearts and sportsmanship. To me it would seem like a personal disrespect to their faith and a discouragement of their faith by a state agent if I were to remove myself at that moment and refuse to even stay within earshot. If the courts wish me to discredit my students' faith through pointed dissassociation, then they are no longer trying to protect religious expression. You will never find me trying to force my faith on others, but don't ask me to disrespect theirs or make it seem taboo.
3. You're absolutely right. The courts have made a lot of good decisions that have allowed some very positive progress in our nation. I'd like to think I've also made a number of good decisions that have led to positive things for the people around me.
Some things, though, I've gotten dead wrong. Nobody, no matter how worthy of respect, is above getting it wrong, and nobody, no matter how worthy of respect, is above getting called out on it. It's about the only way people learn to get it right. Remember, too, even though we tend to think of the Supreme Court as a single entity, for every decision we've mentioned, there have been members on that esteemed panel who believed the others got it dead wrong too.
If "precedent" meant the same thing as "right," imagine some of the things that would still be going on in this world today...
