SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Set the tone

It sounds like many us have never been on a top competing team before. Every team I was a part of had many pre-game rituals. For example, Jim Tressell of Ohio State (great Christian BTW), has his team paired with a band member to play an instrument the night before a game to bond with the Band. I am sure many of the athletes feel awkward. However, it is not necessarily about their individual experience, but the experience as a team. My point here is there are various experiences that shape the way we are and who we are. Sometimes, for the benefit of the team, we have to set aside our differences to be of one mind. I guess if your team does not want to pray before a game then fine-I do not have a problem. My young ladies choose that as a whole and maybe someday it will end. I am thankful to my good Lord everyday that I have a chance to coach. I coach an awesome group of ladies. Gotta go, my youngest has to go to a writers conference in Irmo today.

Most of the public school coaches' arguments found in this thread supporting pre-game prayer at state sponsored events can also be found in the decisions of various courts throughout the country including those decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Most, if not all, of those arguments were found to fail the tests of the "Establishment Clause". (TK, you will even find the argument based on "majority of players".)

Meredith, while I applaud the passion of your conviction of faith, the problem I, and possibly the Constitution, have with "we have to set aside our differences to be of one mind" relative to prayer is... who's "one mind". Although there seems to be some debate here, I do not believe the founding fathers believed ANYONE should be required by the state (which you represent if you coach at a public school) to "set aside our differences to be of one mind", when "one mind" is based on religion. The player/band member ritual is secular in nature, the pre-game prayer is non-secular. Apples and oranges when discussing the First Amendment.

Coaches, to get an idea of maybe why all of those court decisions came about ask yourself when was the last time your team's pre-game prayer was led in Yiddish. Perhaps pre-game prayer was a Buddhist chant, Gregorian chant, a meditation?

Someone here included in his/her post "I'm not a lawyer". Neither am I, but the father of the Jewish player from my carpool I spoke of is. Perhaps the state supported high school she attended decided to segregate mandatory secular and non-mandatory non-secular team events as I described in recognition of his career field. Or, maybe that particular high school had a greater understanding of the Constitution and respect for those court decisions regarding constitutionality than other schools around the state.

I think "I'm not a Lawyer" is significant here. From what I've been reading in the various court decisions, I would suggest the coaches at public high schools consult with the Legal office of the SC State Education System. Ask the state's attorneys their thoughts on public school's pre-game prayer activities. TK, they can't "fire you for believing in Jesus Christ", but it looks like they could do more than fire you for pre-game prayer activities.

We have some wonderful high school coaches in SC. I wouldn't want to lose them. But, from what I'm reading here and in the various decisions many of you could be one player away from losing the opportunity to coach those teams you care so deeply about.

Personally, I've never needed a coach to know when I should or shouldn't engage in prayer. And I've never needed a coach to teach me how.

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

I got curious about laws and my very cursory search reveals:

There's no law regarding strict separation of Church and State, but legal precedent says that the State shall endorse no one religion over another. District Courts have refused the right of a coach to even sit in on a student-led prayer, much less lead one (Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick) and his appeal of this decision was denied by the Supreme Court.

I'd search for more law and precedent because I think it's interesting, but I'm tired and going to go nap, lol.

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.

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...

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!

Oh, and for the record...

Berkeley High uses the Sportsmans' Creed to give that note of solemnity and responsibility to the game. My own pregame simply involves some variant of, "play hard, play with pride and sportsmanship, play for your team around you, and play like you love what you do."

Hope Washington is ok with that.