Coach K and his prayer

EDIT- I have quit trying to format this thing. It WILL NOT COOPERATE. Read at yer own risk.

Nor does anyone question that, in forbidding Mr. Kennedy's brief prayer, the District failed to act pursuant to a neutral and generally applicable rule. A government policy will not qualify as neutral if it is "specifically directed at . . . religious practice." So said the majority decision of the US Supreme Court on the recent decision on prayer and school.

Those two sentences are gonna cause splodey heads. 

Satanists have already shown up once. They are gonna do it again. Under the SCOTUS decision, they have the right to do that. 

If you want prayer in school, you have it. That the prayer horrifies you is your problem. This is, literally, what you asked for if you support this ruling. Disagree if you like. Read this.

A public school system or District is government.

Lemme put this in Supreme Court language, which I will immediately explain afterward. Do not grow vociferous in your call for rejection of the comestible when you are the one who applied sufficient torque to dislodge the containment system seal which heretofore restricted the annelids. 

In plain English - Do not complain about the sandwich when you open the can of worms.

ABOUT THAT DECISION

So, about that decision on the coach and praying...

Read the decision for yourself. 

And read this - 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. That's 1A

While we are at it, read the 14th Amendment -  14A, as currently interpreted sort of, makes the rest of the Constitution also apply to the states. Sort of, because given the current state of the Supreme Court, this could change before you get done reading this sentence.

Here is what the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District decision says in plainer language than the judges used: Coach K can pray, the WAY he tried to do it. 

The Supremes wrote: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.

In plain English - Practice your religion as you see fit unless you are harming someone. Government can't stop you. Wanna dance naked under an oak tree? Cue up the Flashdance soundtrack and have at it. At the same time, government cannot make you dance naked under an oak tree.

This covers all religions, including the Church of the Latter Day Dude, Jediism, Satanism, Jainism, Pastafarian and other religious beliefs you have never heard of. It also covers agnostics and atheists.

Aside: That guy who ended a prayer with "Amen and Awomen" has a profound misunderstanding of language.

In school terms, this means teachers cannot lead students in prayer. Student-lead prayer is acceptable. Teachers can pray; they just cannot require students to join them. This. Is. Critical.

NOT LEADING PRAYER

Everyone in this case agrees Coach Kennedy did not require anyone to join him in prayer. He said that. The school district said that. The lawyers for both sides said that.

In the opening remarks, the decision says - Here, no one questions that Mr. Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise involving giving "thanks through prayer" briefly "on the playing field" at the conclusion of each game he coaches. App. 168, 171. The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team;

I point out the opening remarks are NOT the decision. It is a recap of the case. A statement of the facts, in other words. The majority decision and the dissent follows.

In short, the School District fired him because they were afraid his prayer could be considered approved by the School System.

MAJORITY

The majority ruled for Coach K. 

The exercise in question involves, as Mr. Kennedy has put it, giving thanks through prayer" briefly and by himself "on the playing field" at the conclusion of each game he coaches. Mr. Kennedy has indicated repeatedly that he is wlling to "wai[t] until the game is over and the players have left the field" to "wal[k] to mid-field to say [his] short, private, personal prayer." 

During the postgame period when these prayers occurred, coaches were free to attend briefly to personal matters—everything from checking sports scores on their phones to greeting friends and family in the stands. 

With that reading, Coach K is 100% legal and Constitutional.

The majority decision says, Initially, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own. But over time, some players asked whether they could pray alongside him. 991 F. 3d 1004, 1010 (CA9 2021); App. 169. Mr. Kennedy responded by saying, "'This is a free country. You can do what you want.'" Ibid. The number of players who joined Mr. Kennedy eventually grew to include most of the team, at least after some games. Sometimes team members invited opposing players to join. Other times Mr. Kennedy still prayed alone.

Pretty clear. Students asked to join him. He did not say yes; he did not say no. He said students could do as they wanted.

Absolutely NOT government ordered religion under a plain reading of the coach's comments.

The majority's words go on to add some of the kids prayed before and after a game and that started before Coach K got there. Coach K led this, which is wrong. After getting a complaint, he stopped doing that. The kids were welcome to pray as they wished.

Further, Coach K said he would do his postgame prayer after the students left the field. Solidly OK. The school system waffled on this one saying sorta no and sorta yes at different times. 

When it comes to Mr. Kennedy's free speech claim, our precedents remind us that the First Amendment's protections extend to "teachers and students," neither of whom "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969); see also Lane v. Franks, 573 U. S. 228, 231 (2014).

DISSENT

Writing for the dissent, Judge Sonia Sotomayor says,  The record reveals that Kennedy had a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field. Kennedy consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location.

Judge Sotomayor added, The Court also ignores the severe disruption to school events caused by Kennedy's conduct. Dunno where she is from, but it ain't the South I come from. After the fooball game, the field is swamped by people from all around the stadium. A coach and a few folks taking a knee to pray after the game is not a disruption. May be different up in Washington State where this case comes from. Coach K. prayed after the game.

Point of order. The Court did not ignore anything. Again, from the opening statement, The timing and circumstances of Mr. Kennedy's prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirms that Mr. Kennedy did not offer his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach.

In plain English, Coach K was not being a coach when he took a knee after the game. He was doing his own thing, which is clearly permitted.

COACH IS COACH IS COACH

Now, lemme monkey wrench these gears. Coach is Coach is Coach.

[T]he Ninth Circuit stressed that, as a coach, Mr. Kennedy served as a role model "clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom."

Yep. In this case, that has to figure into the decision. Well, it should anyway. It does not mean that everything a coach says and does is authorized or even acceptable to the school where he is employed. But Coach is Coach is Coach.

Page 3, still in the opening remarks, says,  It is not dispositive that Coach Kennedy served as a role model and remained on duty after games. To hold otherwise is to posit an "excessively broad job descriptio[n]" by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control.

Yeah. I had to look up the word "dispositive" and after writing this, I will immediately forget what it means.

The Court says here that a coach is also a person with a life beyond being a coach. Everything he (or she) does is not related to being a coach. True. The Court says Coach K's after-game prayer is not part of him being a coach.

I say they sorta got this one wrong. Here is why.

1) Coach K repeatedly said his after-game prayer is done win or lose. He said, repeatedly, the prayer is part of an agreement he has with his God regarding the game. In that view, his prayer is part of being a coach.

2) Coach is Coach is Coach. What I mean by that is, a coach is always and forever a coach to the people he instructed. Anything and everything that coach does, it is seen as "Coach (whatever) did that. Coach (whatever) said  that." A coach is a coach 24/7/365 to the people who know him. I know coaches who are retired for decades. They are still called "Coach." I coached T-Ball when my kids were little. The kids (now adults) who remember still call me Coach.

3) Very few people ever generate the respect a coach has. This respect puts the coach and his actions and words on a higher level than anyone else including law enforcement, elected officials and others.

4) It is easier to leave a motorcycle gang than to stop being Coach. If you ever had a coach or are a coach, you get that.

5) A coach is a role model 24/7/365. Anything he does is seen as an example, a way to do something. The players he coaches at that time will watch everything he does and they will try to do it.

6) He is never NOT a coach. He is always a figure of authority no matter how old his former players get or how long ago they played for him. As the school system argued, Mr. Kennedy "wielded enormous authority and influence over the students," and students might have felt compelled to pray alongside him.

Yep.

Taking all 6 points I list here, when Coach K took a knee after the game, he was setting an example. He was, literally, teaching these kids to pray. Certainly, he never told the kids they had to join him, but some kids saw it and many joined him just because it was a coach praying. 

He was the coach. He was teaching the kids. He was leading them in prayer. At the same time, he never said they had to do that to be on the team. In fact, both sides agree Coach K said he was willing to do his prayer AFTER the kids left the field. This is why the decision is also sorta right.

Peer pressure is a significant factor too. Some of the parents report their children said as much. Football is a game of cooperation and teamwork. Outsiders simply don't work well in football. It is natural that team members would join the prayer, just to continue to be part of the team, whether they wanted to pray or not.

The flip side of that is something called personal responsibility. If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you go too?

NOW SOME SAND

Here is some sand in those gears in case the monkey wrench did not work.

That prayer is voluntary. Players who did not join him were not punished or denied the opportunity to play. If Coach K took action against the players who did not join him, that would be flat wrong.

This way, arg. Does Coach K or any other coach have the right to pray? Absolutely. See 1A above. Can he pray on the football field? Yep. See 1A above. He just cannot require anyone to join him. Everyone agrees he did not require students or anyone else top join him. Can he pray at other times? Yep.

Still, he is coach and if the players see him do something they see as connected to the game, they will feel obligated to participate.

A SAND MONKEY WRENCH

I am now making this worse with a sand monkey wrench. Every school system I have ever covered says the coach is NOT off duty until the last player leaves the campus. As long as one player is at school, the coach is on duty and a school system employee.

At the same time, school system employees MUST be allowed some personal time and space. Bathroom breaks are necessary.

arg.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT 

In the end, the District's case hinges on the need to generate conflict between an individual's rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses and its own Establishment Clause  duties—and then develop some explanation why one of these Clauses in the First Amendment should "'trum[p]'" the other two. ... . In truth, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands before us. There is only the "mere shadow" of a conflict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Establishment Clause.

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. 

In other words, Coach K can pray. 

ALL OR NOTHING

Based on all this, what we have is an all-or-nothing approach. Let everyone or let no one. If the school district shut down Coach K but allowed other teachers to pray, then the school district was clearly splitting the difference. Betcha other teachers prayed.

Under the District's reasoning, a teacher in the cafeteria could not bow to say grace before eating. As long as the teacher is not being loud or demanding others to participate, anyone with sense would say this is permitted. The Constitution sees no difference between saying grace and a Muslim person declining a ham sandwich in the lunch line.

In other words, that barn door was ripped off the hinges and burned. Everybody can come in, provided they do so without demanding others follow.

I do not like this decision. However, I believe it is the right one. I also do not like watermelon, very bright lights, ReDamnoboobicraticans and hot weather. Other people do enjoy these things and I shall not stand in their way as long as they do not force me to join them. Let Coach K pray. If you do not like it, show up and you too can have your quiet, non-forced say after the game is over.

Daffodils much?

You are not your own

With the country in a near meltdown over recent Supreme Court decisions, a few things need to be said.

These musings will not settle any issue. Like as not, they will also not convince anyone to even consider changing their mind.

Eh. I have to write it out because that is what I do. I can lead you to reason, but I can not and will not make you think.

You Are Not Your Own

While it may appear I am borrowing a page from the Sovereign Citizen movement, I am not. One thing these people and I do have in common is we believe You Are Not Your Own according to the government. In other words, you are not allowed to control your own body. The government controls your body, if you believe the current government is legitimate. 

The Dobbs decision is just a drop in an oil tanker.

Some of you are shaking your heads and calling me an idiot now. 

Here is your proof.

MEDICAL

You do not have the right to decide what medical procedures you go through. Two Supreme Court decisions from Jan. 2022 make this clear.

"The rule mandates COVID-19 vaccination, absent a medical or religious exemption, for all health care workers in institutions that receive federal funding for patients enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid," says Health Affairs.

That was Biden v. Missouri in case you wanna look it up.

The other was NFIB v. OSHA. That one said, OSHA overreached its authority.

OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here, the decision says.

Neither ruling overturned a 1905 decision.

That one says in part, A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.

An aside: this is the same line of reasoning (at least where legislative action is concerned) that SCOTUS used in the most recent gun decision and the abortion decision. These matters are left to state legislatures and voters.

Can you get medical care from someone who is not trained nor certified? Yes. Most of us had a mom or dad who put a Band-Aid on us. If you are old like me, you also got dosed with Mercurochrome too. Practicing medicine without a license is illegal, but the person doing the work gets charged, not you.

Buck v. Bell was overturned. That one can be reversed yet again. While rare, we just saw SCOTUS did, can and will flip previous decisions. I've been saying for years Stari Decisis is a convenient legal fiction. This statement annoys people, particularly lawyers, but the empirical evidence is on my side.

Buck, in case you wonder, was overturned in 1978.

SCOTUS says rejecting food and water is a decision a person can legally make, except when government says otherwise.

If this has not made my point on medical matters, then anything else I add will not make a difference.

You are not your own.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

A lot of people are yelling that the abortion decision only affects women. Well, more accurately in that line of reasoning, it affects pregnant women who seek abortion. Owing to the reality of biology, men cannot have an abortion so saying this is biological sex discrimination is technically accurate, but bloody stupid at the same time.

However, sex discrimination is intentionally, deliberately and specifically built into federal law without any solid reason behind it.

Selective Service - Exclusively male. Women are not required to sign up and have never, in the US, been subject to the draft. Repeated court cases over this one have left this mandatory registration for armed services duty if needed intact. Court cases have also repeatedly declared leaving it male-only is acceptable.

It was only recently women were allowed to intentionally be in combat roles.

You, men anyway, are not your own.

VICTIMLESS CRIMES

Lemme bend your metaphorical ear for a moment about victimless crimes. In short, victimless means no one is harmed, except for someone's feelings. Yes. Feelings. 

...most offenses against morals such as gambling, which are not designed for the protection of a particular vulnerable class, should be viewed as having no real "victim"... (emphasis mine) says the DOJ.

In other words, you think it is wrong so no one should be able to do it. That kinda thinking invites other people to tell you the exact same thing and stop you from doing the things you want to do. Lemme slap you with some daffodils.

If you can prove physical or financial harm, then making the activity illegal bears discussion. Ripping a reputation to shreds has affected people's ability to earn money, so economic harm is there. Getting your feelings hurt, despite what the cantservative and liarberal crowd believe, should not be something for the law to deal with. If your feelings get hurt, put on your adult britches and move along.

While I have opinions regarding items in the list below, I am not sharing my opinion, except for one. I'm just telling you these are crimes of a moral nature. Moral = feelings in this case.

Prostitution - Except for parts of Nevada, being a hooker of any gender is illegal. Hiring a hooker is illegal most places. Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, home of Las Vegas. Being a hooker is legal in most of the state. 

Drugs - Can you go out and buy heroin just because you want to? Yes. However, buying it is illegal. Some drugs you can buy over the counter, some require a prescription and some others require the prescribing doc to have a Drug Enforcement Agency permit in addition to all the other licenses required to be a legally practicing doctor. Speaking of drugs, a here is a just-in unanimous decision on prescribing drugs.You certainly can buy alcohol, legally if you are at least 21. Why the difference? You can buy tobacco products legally if you are at least 21. Do you know how old you have to be to legally work in a tobacco field? Dunno about your state, but here in Jawja, we have no minimum age at all for farm workers. 

Contraband - What is contraband and what is not varies widely and depends on the place and the time. Step across a state line and what was legal where you were is now illegal where you are. Imagine standing in one place with something in your pocket. 3/4s of you is breaking the law. It can happen. In this vein, you do not have the right to own anything. You can lease it from the government in the form of taxes. You also pay taxes for the privilege to work. If you have to pay to do it, it is not a right but a privilege. If government wants to take it away from you, just have to declare possession illegal.

Public drunk - This is not drunk driving, which is rightly illegal on public roads. If you get plastered and want to walk home, you can be arrested.

Assisted suicide - This is illegal. Doctor assisted suicide is legal in a few places. (See link). Some states say attempted suicide is illegal, which is bizarre when you think about it. Illegal to try, but if you succeed, it is not a crime. Kinda hard to prosecute someone who is dead, of course. In other words, you cannot end your own life without government permission beforehand. Paradoxically, the government can grant itself permission to end your life. Capital punishment is legal in most states and is federally legal. Add to this, sometimes just sentencing someone to prison is increasingly a death sentence. 

Gambling - Unless you live in Nevada, Atlantic City or have a however-tenuous connection to Native American tribes, as in standing in one of their casinos, you cannot legally gamble in person. I know places that have poker every weekend. It is illegal. Why? Gambling online? May be illegal. If it is your money, shouldn't you be allowed to spend it as you see fit when you do not hurt anyone?

Public nudity - Set aside the fact most of us should NEVER appear naked in public. The question is, aside from needing eye bleach (he wrote sarcastically), who gets hurt when some walks around in public in nothing but their birthday suit? The idea of protecting ANYONE from seeing a nude person who is just going about their day, albeit without clothes, is in direct contradiction to all kinds of art like statues, paintings and even live displays.

Homelessness -  Yes, it is illegal in many places to be homeless. Why? Justifications like stopping people from pooping on the sidewalk may be aimed at homeless people, but these laws also affect people who have homes. Besides which, those laws are environmental safety issues.

Trespassing - According to some, this is a "victimless" crime. According to others, me being one, it is not. I maintain property for hunting. When people walk through, it can and does disturb the hunting programs I have in place, not to mention the dangers to the person doing the trespassing during hunting season. Further, I should be able to control who comes into my house.

Raw Milk - As of this year, Georgia joins the ranks of states where you can buy raw milk. Still illegal in most states. I looked up a list of other banned in the US foods, but every one I checked listed some stuff banned when it is legal. F'r'instance, horse meat is legal in the US for human consumption. Beluga caviar is legal, sort of. Despite them growing wild, "magic mushrooms" are pretty much illegal.

You can vote if you are 18. Why the difference, is something people wiser than I often ask. If you have "body autonomy" then what you put in it is your business and yours alone. When you become an adult, it should be government hands off.

You are not your own.

MARRIAGE

Sooner or later, someone is gonna point to the Obergefell decision on marriage, the one that said two ladies, two gents or two humans of whatever gender-of-the-moment they want to be have the right to marry each other. This decision does say:

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

Pay attention. That's the first premise, there is more:

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. Lotta "general welfare" going on here. Lotta hypocrisy too.

What we have here is the High Court being hypocrites, in addition to saying marriage is matter of legal and social order. In the abortion and gun decisions, the dissent (who was in the majority on the marriage decision) says the historical record is not valid. Here, it is valid. Pick one and stick with it, wudjaplease. But that's another blog.

Anyway, one more from the Obergefell decision, which overruled the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, the first same-sex marriage case to hit the High Court after Loving v. Virginia.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

Didja read that? REQUIRES. That is a stand-alone, one-line paragraph. SCOTUS decisions are carefully worded, carefully phrased, edited, revised, stomped flat, brushed off, refined in fire and so on before being publicly issued. Making this a single-line paragraph is not an accident. The judges wanted it to stand out. Someone will say also it says between 2 people of the same sex. That only means states cannot restrict licenses to a man and a woman. Do it for John and Jane, gotta do it for John and John or Jane and Jane or J and J.

Wanna get married, better ask Big Brother. Obergefell is not only about love, it is about government control over you.

Amusingly enough, the same decision also says children are better raised by married couples, not unmarried parents. Don't believe it. It's in the decision and this time I ain't doing your homework.

You are not your own.

GAME OVER

Some people are still going to argue about body autonomy. Read this and see Game Over.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That, luddites and geraniums, is the opening statement of the US Constitution, ONE of the bodies of work the US Supreme Court, the various legislatures from City Councils up to Congress and the executive branches of government use to govern. I say "one of" because laws and various court decisions reference a lot more than just the US Constitution, but that's another blog.

Four words "promote the general welfare" mean you are not your own person. The Constitution even says as much. Slaves were 3/5ths of a person. At the time those words were written, women had whatever rights their fathers/brothers or husbands chose to let them have. Native Americans, yeah, well books are written about that too Yes, the Constitution changed, but that original intent is still very much a part of the current laws and various court decisions.

You may not care what the Founding Fathers said or meant. Reality also does not care what you say, mean, intend or think. The current reality is what I'm dealing with and that is you are not your own.

Furthermore, lots of people debate what those four simple words mean. Debate all you like. As it stands right now, only 5 opinions matter and those are the opinions of 5 Supreme Court justices, which is a majority.

No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds, says the Law Library.

So have the Supremes ever decided what the "general welfare" covers? Regularly and routinely. Most of the SCOTUS decisions have covered general welfare and spending. An excellent example of this is Jones v. Flowers. The entire court agreed property taxes are legal and necessary. They only split on minutiae in the case.

What about where it concerns body autonomy? See the Medical Decision cases and the list of banned stuff above. More? Okay

You are forced to have health insurance.

You do have the right to refuse medical treatment, sort of. People who are legally not allowed to decide the issue for themselves can have medical treatment done even if it is against their wishes. (Got a living will yet?) If the person later objects (living will yet?), think a Jehovah Witness unconscious and getting a blood transfusion, oh well. Sorry about that. (Living will yet?) In the absence of a living will, other people decide for you.

Here are a few cases the American Medical Association focuses on. As you eyeball these, bear in mind these are wins for the AMA. You have to search the archives to find cases they lost.

The debate over that "general welfare" clause is old, as in the people who wrote the Constitution argued about it old. States have specifically expanded general welfare in their own constitutions to cover matters of health and more.

Narrow this a bit more and focus on the word general. As much as it grinds my libertarian soul into subatomic particles, attorney James Rogers is spot on.

First, promoting the “general welfare” stands in relation to its antonym, that of promoting a particular or limited welfare. Promoting the general welfare certainly rules out promoting the welfare of particular individuals or factions.

Thus sayeth the Supreme Court, including the minority in the recent Big 3 cases and in so many more decisions than just the Big 3 causing so much heartburn.

dammitdammitdammitdammit Game over.

You may not like this. However, as a great friend of mine says when I object to things he supports, "This is our social contract."

You are not your own.

You are not your own.

Saying no

It is great running three different businesses in which I can say No to anyone at any time and I do not need a reason.

You read that correctly. With the businesses I run, I can refuse service to anyone, anytime and I do not need a reason.

I have said no. I will say no in the future.

This infuriates some people, be they on the right or the left. Their ire and anger amuses me.

Regular readers of my musings know that I believe a private business can refuse service to anyone, any time for any reason. I also believe you don't need to supply a reason.

If you own the business, you should be able to decide who your customers are. Dude walks in with green hair and you don't like it, you have the right to refuse service. Whether I like it or not is beside the point.

The other side of this coin means I can refuse to do business with a company that has policies I do not like. In fact I refuse to do business with some companies because of this. You can do the same.

I am very glad I get to decide who my customers are.