The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In my opinion, the only sensible interpretation of the First Amendment, as regards religion, is to prohibit the government from passing laws that impose special restrictions on, or grant special privileges to, activity that is "religious" in nature as opposed to activity that isn't. This is to prevent government from having to define what exactly religion is, which religious organizations are "legitimate", and so on, which I think is precisely what the the authors of the First Amendment wanted to avoid. I realize that there is a body of legislation and case law that may disagree with me to some extent, and since I'm neither a Supreme Court justice, a judge, a constitutional scholar, nor even an attorney, I am not qualified to rule legally on these issues. But unlike some complicated and specialized laws, the Constitution is supposed to be accessible to and understandable by ordinary citizens like me.
I believe that religious freedom (and various other freedoms) are inextricably bound up with property rights, as construed broadly to include one's own time and labor. For example, you can express religious or other opinions in the privacy of your own home, but not in your neighbors' unless they grant you permission to do so. Public spaces, like sidewalks, streets, and parks, are shared among all citizens, and the government is stuck with the task of deciding who gets access to those limited resources. But government shouldn't engage in "viewpoint discrimination", e.g. granting some religious group access to a park, while denying a different one, based on the ideas those groups express.
So, I'll try to apply these principles to Coach Kennedy and his 50-yard prayers:
The football fields in question are not his private property. Also, accepting a coaching job involved selling away some of his time and labor to an employer who had a right to impose restrictions on his activities. For example, if he were hired to teach a math class, the school, public or private, would not be obligated to let him use class time and classroom space to preach a religious doctrine. Libertarians tend to claim (rightly, I think) that conflicts over public school policies involving curricula, religious expression, cultural values, etc., arise precisely because the schools are public. They think the solution is either school choice, to make it easier for parents and students to escape schools that conflict with their standards and needs, or, in the extreme, to do away with public schools altogether.
But Coach Kennedy's case is about public schools and sports events, so we're stuck in a murky area of policy, about which I'm unsure. But I'm sympathetic to the skeptical views of Lee Morris (see his numerous comments on this article).
Can a school teacher sit by themselves at lunch, cross themselves after a private prayer, get noticed by others, have those others voluntarily join said teacher at routine lunch, and then participate voluntarily at the now group lunch?
My understanding is that this above scenario is an equivalent to what happened on the field after the games.
A teacher quietly crossing themselves before a meal is not at all equivalent to a coach getting down on his knees under the lights on the 50 yard line and praying in front of stands full of spectators not to mention a team of minors over whose sports career he has total power. I support the teacher’s right to say a private grace. I do not support the coach’s extravagant display, however sincere.
Would you feel the same way if it were a Muslim coach? Or a Wiccan? It just seems that Christians feel very strongly about “religious liberty” when it privileges Christians. What is so terrifying about respecting the separation of church and state? About refraining from conducting mass religious rituals on taxpayer-funded public-school property? I’m not anti-religion by any means, but I think it’s weirdly arrogant - prideful even - to assume your faith is so wonderful and special it has to be displayed for all to see whether they like it or not. And please tell me when Jesus started caring about football.
If you read my other comments you’ll understand me better. I have respect for people who follow their faith in a power greater than themselves. It’s called humility. Where did the mass religious ritual take place? Are you uncomfortable with any display of faith? In addition, if you understood religious people a bit more, you’d know prayer is not rooted in pride (your distain is showing; thou protests too much.) Oh, and Jesus started caring about football exactly at the moment Mr Kennedy prayed in gratitude.
I‘m very close with my Catholic in-laws. I go to mass with them when we visit. I kneel when we should kneel, I pray when we pray. I got married in a Catholic service and baptized our four children for their sakes. I don’t disdain religion.
I do take exception to people of faith judging me for my lack of faith. Several of these family members, though we adore each other and have a blast together (two of whom are my kids’ godparents) openly believe I’m going to Hell. Ditto their gay acquaintances. I find this very confusing and certainly not a religion I’d want to be part of. My f-I-l is adamant that, no matter how a person conducts themselves, no matter how many good works, etc, they are not *truly* good unless they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Thus, friends and other family members who’ve cheated on each other, committed crimes, etc. will ALWAYS be better than me though I work in charity and have been faithful to my husband. He regularly supplies me with articles - usual from First Things - that argue this (sometimes subtly sometimes not).
So, I totally respect their faith - truly! But I have real problems with how their faith sees me.
I’m sorry they judge you. But that is a fallible person judging you, not “the faith”. You’re conflating bad behavior with all things religious. No wonder you have a grudge.
Some of these fallible people are bishops, priests, pastors. There’s plenty in the Bible, too, that judges non-Christians, including, you know, believing they will justly endure an eternity of the most horrible suffering imaginable for the sole reason that they’re not Christian. You should listen to the This American Life episode about the pastor who was kicked out of his mega-church for deciding that God wasn’t sending little starving babies in Africa to hell just because they hadn’t been baptized.
I know many, many absolutely loving, welcoming, non-judging Christians. The priest who baptized my kids is one of the most e beautiful human beings on the planet. The Jesuits who ran both my older sons’ colleges were wonderful, loving, broad/minded, curious people. Friends, family, writers I adore. But I don’t think it’s fair or factually correct for you to suggest that the type of judgement I described is an aberration - just a few bad apples misunderstanding the faith.
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Proverbs 15:8 ESV
“But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Matthew 6:5 ESV
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.“
Funny. I read those passages (and others) to mean that public displays — like, say, praying on the 50 yard line in front of a stadium of people - are pretty much inherently prideful. I think the coach felt his prayer as being humble before the lord - which is sincere and good for him - but maybe didn’t step back and wonder if being humble before his lord in a very public way didn’t actually contradict the lord’s admonitions to not to “stand and pray… that (you) may seem by others.”
I know people of great faith who would never do that. I think coach Kennedy meant no harm, I think he meant only good things. I believe many people enjoyed and felt loved by his prayers. And I think he didn’t need to pray there and then and could have humbly stepped back.
Again, I ask how you’d react if the coach were conducting Muslim prayers on the field. It’s easy to see the actions of those who are like us as good and the same actions by those who are different as unseemly.
For the record, I’m not some atheist firebrand. I accept that God made me the way that I am and made others to believe in him and good for them. I just don’t. I never gave a hoot about saying “under God” in the pledge of allegiance and probably wouldn’t if my kids were saying it (unless they didn’t like it). But we live in a diverse, democratic country where we must constantly make tradeoffs in order to balance as best we can the rights of all. To me, it doesn’t seem like an unfair balance - to be an excessive burden on any religious person - to ask them not to ostentatiously practice their faith on public school property, particularly among students.
I thought I answered the question about if the coach was of a different faith. It wouldn’t bother me; I’ve lived in a Muslim country and understand we’re not all that different from each other. Muslims wouldn’t pray on the field like that though; it would be out of character. Regardless, if spectators wanted to join in, I’d be surprised and then I’d wonder what what compelled to join their coach in such a way. Being in communion with others is a powerful thing. Then I’d be grateful to the coach for showing them humility and gratitude for life’s blessings.
That’s good to hear. I like your response. I think all of these things are wonderful and I wish more Americans could experience communion with others, as you call it, in such a deep way. I believe that many people got that from Coach Kennedy’s group prayers. I also think it’s fair for the government to say that one can’t practice one’s religion on public - taxpayer funded - property. If the coach brought his team together to , for example, hold hands and say an ecumenical “prayer” - without reference or any particular deity or savior, but speak about humility and service and love, etc, and just have a moment of contemplation of our higher purpose, that would be not only acceptable but 100% laudable. I would love if my children’s coaches would do that. I’m afraid I wouldn’t love it if their coaches said all those things were inherently to do with Jesus or any god.
I think the answer depends on the context. If the school were truly private, then it could make whatever rules it liked for its teachers and lunchroom; teachers who didn't like those rules could find a different job. If the school were public, then it could depend on whether the lunchroom served only teachers, hence adults, in which case I would say the answer is probably yes. But if the lunchroom also served children, and the teacher sat down with some children and tried to persuade them to engage in prayer or some other religious activity, then I'm not so sure.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In my opinion, the only sensible interpretation of the First Amendment, as regards religion, is to prohibit the government from passing laws that impose special restrictions on, or grant special privileges to, activity that is "religious" in nature as opposed to activity that isn't. This is to prevent government from having to define what exactly religion is, which religious organizations are "legitimate", and so on, which I think is precisely what the the authors of the First Amendment wanted to avoid. I realize that there is a body of legislation and case law that may disagree with me to some extent, and since I'm neither a Supreme Court justice, a judge, a constitutional scholar, nor even an attorney, I am not qualified to rule legally on these issues. But unlike some complicated and specialized laws, the Constitution is supposed to be accessible to and understandable by ordinary citizens like me.
I believe that religious freedom (and various other freedoms) are inextricably bound up with property rights, as construed broadly to include one's own time and labor. For example, you can express religious or other opinions in the privacy of your own home, but not in your neighbors' unless they grant you permission to do so. Public spaces, like sidewalks, streets, and parks, are shared among all citizens, and the government is stuck with the task of deciding who gets access to those limited resources. But government shouldn't engage in "viewpoint discrimination", e.g. granting some religious group access to a park, while denying a different one, based on the ideas those groups express.
So, I'll try to apply these principles to Coach Kennedy and his 50-yard prayers:
The football fields in question are not his private property. Also, accepting a coaching job involved selling away some of his time and labor to an employer who had a right to impose restrictions on his activities. For example, if he were hired to teach a math class, the school, public or private, would not be obligated to let him use class time and classroom space to preach a religious doctrine. Libertarians tend to claim (rightly, I think) that conflicts over public school policies involving curricula, religious expression, cultural values, etc., arise precisely because the schools are public. They think the solution is either school choice, to make it easier for parents and students to escape schools that conflict with their standards and needs, or, in the extreme, to do away with public schools altogether.
But Coach Kennedy's case is about public schools and sports events, so we're stuck in a murky area of policy, about which I'm unsure. But I'm sympathetic to the skeptical views of Lee Morris (see his numerous comments on this article).
Can a school teacher sit by themselves at lunch, cross themselves after a private prayer, get noticed by others, have those others voluntarily join said teacher at routine lunch, and then participate voluntarily at the now group lunch?
My understanding is that this above scenario is an equivalent to what happened on the field after the games.
A teacher quietly crossing themselves before a meal is not at all equivalent to a coach getting down on his knees under the lights on the 50 yard line and praying in front of stands full of spectators not to mention a team of minors over whose sports career he has total power. I support the teacher’s right to say a private grace. I do not support the coach’s extravagant display, however sincere.
Regardless, it’s still protected speech. Why does it need to be in private, hidden away? What is so terrifying?
Would you feel the same way if it were a Muslim coach? Or a Wiccan? It just seems that Christians feel very strongly about “religious liberty” when it privileges Christians. What is so terrifying about respecting the separation of church and state? About refraining from conducting mass religious rituals on taxpayer-funded public-school property? I’m not anti-religion by any means, but I think it’s weirdly arrogant - prideful even - to assume your faith is so wonderful and special it has to be displayed for all to see whether they like it or not. And please tell me when Jesus started caring about football.
If you read my other comments you’ll understand me better. I have respect for people who follow their faith in a power greater than themselves. It’s called humility. Where did the mass religious ritual take place? Are you uncomfortable with any display of faith? In addition, if you understood religious people a bit more, you’d know prayer is not rooted in pride (your distain is showing; thou protests too much.) Oh, and Jesus started caring about football exactly at the moment Mr Kennedy prayed in gratitude.
I‘m very close with my Catholic in-laws. I go to mass with them when we visit. I kneel when we should kneel, I pray when we pray. I got married in a Catholic service and baptized our four children for their sakes. I don’t disdain religion.
I do take exception to people of faith judging me for my lack of faith. Several of these family members, though we adore each other and have a blast together (two of whom are my kids’ godparents) openly believe I’m going to Hell. Ditto their gay acquaintances. I find this very confusing and certainly not a religion I’d want to be part of. My f-I-l is adamant that, no matter how a person conducts themselves, no matter how many good works, etc, they are not *truly* good unless they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Thus, friends and other family members who’ve cheated on each other, committed crimes, etc. will ALWAYS be better than me though I work in charity and have been faithful to my husband. He regularly supplies me with articles - usual from First Things - that argue this (sometimes subtly sometimes not).
So, I totally respect their faith - truly! But I have real problems with how their faith sees me.
I’m sorry they judge you. But that is a fallible person judging you, not “the faith”. You’re conflating bad behavior with all things religious. No wonder you have a grudge.
Some of these fallible people are bishops, priests, pastors. There’s plenty in the Bible, too, that judges non-Christians, including, you know, believing they will justly endure an eternity of the most horrible suffering imaginable for the sole reason that they’re not Christian. You should listen to the This American Life episode about the pastor who was kicked out of his mega-church for deciding that God wasn’t sending little starving babies in Africa to hell just because they hadn’t been baptized.
I know many, many absolutely loving, welcoming, non-judging Christians. The priest who baptized my kids is one of the most e beautiful human beings on the planet. The Jesuits who ran both my older sons’ colleges were wonderful, loving, broad/minded, curious people. Friends, family, writers I adore. But I don’t think it’s fair or factually correct for you to suggest that the type of judgement I described is an aberration - just a few bad apples misunderstanding the faith.
Definitely not an aberration. People practice their faith not because they think they’re perfect. It’s because they know they are not.
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Proverbs 15:8 ESV
“But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Matthew 6:5 ESV
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.“
Matthew 6:6 ESV
Excellent. The key motivator here for someone being prideful instead of humble. Both motivators, however, sometimes happen in public.
Funny. I read those passages (and others) to mean that public displays — like, say, praying on the 50 yard line in front of a stadium of people - are pretty much inherently prideful. I think the coach felt his prayer as being humble before the lord - which is sincere and good for him - but maybe didn’t step back and wonder if being humble before his lord in a very public way didn’t actually contradict the lord’s admonitions to not to “stand and pray… that (you) may seem by others.”
I know people of great faith who would never do that. I think coach Kennedy meant no harm, I think he meant only good things. I believe many people enjoyed and felt loved by his prayers. And I think he didn’t need to pray there and then and could have humbly stepped back.
Again, I ask how you’d react if the coach were conducting Muslim prayers on the field. It’s easy to see the actions of those who are like us as good and the same actions by those who are different as unseemly.
For the record, I’m not some atheist firebrand. I accept that God made me the way that I am and made others to believe in him and good for them. I just don’t. I never gave a hoot about saying “under God” in the pledge of allegiance and probably wouldn’t if my kids were saying it (unless they didn’t like it). But we live in a diverse, democratic country where we must constantly make tradeoffs in order to balance as best we can the rights of all. To me, it doesn’t seem like an unfair balance - to be an excessive burden on any religious person - to ask them not to ostentatiously practice their faith on public school property, particularly among students.
I thought I answered the question about if the coach was of a different faith. It wouldn’t bother me; I’ve lived in a Muslim country and understand we’re not all that different from each other. Muslims wouldn’t pray on the field like that though; it would be out of character. Regardless, if spectators wanted to join in, I’d be surprised and then I’d wonder what what compelled to join their coach in such a way. Being in communion with others is a powerful thing. Then I’d be grateful to the coach for showing them humility and gratitude for life’s blessings.
That’s good to hear. I like your response. I think all of these things are wonderful and I wish more Americans could experience communion with others, as you call it, in such a deep way. I believe that many people got that from Coach Kennedy’s group prayers. I also think it’s fair for the government to say that one can’t practice one’s religion on public - taxpayer funded - property. If the coach brought his team together to , for example, hold hands and say an ecumenical “prayer” - without reference or any particular deity or savior, but speak about humility and service and love, etc, and just have a moment of contemplation of our higher purpose, that would be not only acceptable but 100% laudable. I would love if my children’s coaches would do that. I’m afraid I wouldn’t love it if their coaches said all those things were inherently to do with Jesus or any god.
I think the answer depends on the context. If the school were truly private, then it could make whatever rules it liked for its teachers and lunchroom; teachers who didn't like those rules could find a different job. If the school were public, then it could depend on whether the lunchroom served only teachers, hence adults, in which case I would say the answer is probably yes. But if the lunchroom also served children, and the teacher sat down with some children and tried to persuade them to engage in prayer or some other religious activity, then I'm not so sure.
You can be sure. That would not be legal in a public school.