Well, I just wrote a nice response after reading the material, thought it was pretty tidy, went to post it, was informed "the form you submitted is no longer valid" and the whole thing disappeared into the ether. Love this system. That'll teach me not to copy a long post before I try to submit it.
In short, I agree with Santa Fe v. Doe in that the school used the "organs of government" (Justice Brennan), the school venue and the PA system, to present an overtly religious message.
The other cases centered around coercion, "coach's behest," "no pray, no play" policies, and other ideas of obvious discrimination and pressure...not sure how this equates with a coach bowing his head after a student requests to give a short prayer with the approval of the team. That's a show of respect from an authority figure who, as Wooten himself points out, is a primary focal point for receiving just that...respect and approval. Note, too, that while the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disapproves of a coach bowing for a student prayer, the Supreme Court denied cert to this decision. And Wooten's argument that a moment of silence (with no further instruction) is the same as the state endorsing a religion based on "the intent of the coach in providing it" is really reaching.
Let's face it; there is no true neutral ground. When students express their faith, they will infer either approval or disapproval from their coaches and teachers, depending on their response. If Wooten is right that the bowing of the head constitutes implied endorsement, then would walking away also imply disapproval? Is either approval or disapproval more acceptable than the other under the Establishment Clause? To analyze from a point of ethics rather than morals, which, in the context of a public school team, would do the more harm or good to the greater number of students?
No absolute answers...but I guess the more questions people ask ourselves, the closer we can come to something approximating right, eh? At the very least, it's a good mental stretch!
