54° and Overcast
Image
Edward Kimmel from Takoma Park, MD, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Image by Edward Kimmel from Takoma Park, MD, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The following opinion article represents the views and opinions of the author alone, and not necessarily those of Westwood Minute.
By John Aram, Contributor
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . ”
-- The Constitution of the United States, First Amendment
Many of our country’s Founding Fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, among others--were persons of faith, and protecting religious freedom was a foremost principle for them. Mindful of history’s religious conflicts, they understood that religious freedom would flourish only in a secular state. To this end, the First Amendment prohibits state action showing religious favoritism or interfering with free exercise of belief. Avoiding potential religious conflicts, strict separation of Church and State has contributed to stability and cohesion in communities such as Westwood.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court’s zeal to protect a high school football coach’s religious expression appears to blur the line between Church and State. Ironically, the Court’s intention to defend religious freedom by allowing the coach’s public religious display in the post-game period may end up undermining the very freedom the Court seeks to protect.
The case at hand involves a part-time assistant football coach at the Bremerton, Washington, High School.[i] The coach believed his commitment to God involved praying on the 50 yard line immediately after games to express his gratitude for what the players had accomplished and for the opportunity to be part of their lives through football.
While no one contested the coach’s right to pray privately, the District argued that the coach represented the school until the players were discharged to their parents or otherwise allowed to leave. In this view, praying at the end of games on the 50 yard line was a public religious demonstration by the coach while in his role as a school official, conveying the impression that his action was backed by the District. Unable to reach an accord with the coach about his praying after games, his contract was not renewed.
In contrast, the Court accepted the view that other coaching staff regularly engaged in private, brief, actions not within the scope of their duties after games, such as checking email messages, making a phone call, greeting a friend, or attending to other personal matters. Under this reasoning, the Court found the First Amendment allowed the coach a “brief, quiet, personal religious observance” enacted in his capacity as a private citizen. That observance was determined to be outside the scope of his duties and therefore permissible. The Court ordered the coach’s reinstatement.
This decision opens the door to questions about the Court’s ruling, such as when, how often, or for how long a person has discretion to act privately while engaged in an official role. How can an individual simultaneously represent the District and act as a private citizen? Should an individual, alone, be able to decide to act privately while employed by the public? Is there a point at which opting out of an official role to pray publicly neglects one’s official duties? Moreover, is there a point where failure to discipline the person would imply state endorsement? By creating unanswered questions about the coach’s action, the Court blurred the strict line between Church and State.
For news, events and opinion, subscribe to Westwood Minute's free newsletter!
Other factors contribute to this ambiguity. For example, the coach actively sought publicity by giving media interviews about his praying; thus, his public display of praying questions whether his prayers were, in a social sense, “quiet.” Also, were his prayers “personal” when he was joined after at least one game by members of the opposing team, members of the public, including several state representatives? By focusing on the coach's conduct following three games that the District raised as reasons for his firing, the Court's analysis did not assess the continuity between his praying after games and previously leading prayers prior to games and giving religious messages after games at mid-field. Nor did the Court evaluate the coach’s stated desire to allow his players to join him voluntarily in prayer or the potential pressure on players to join his praying. These ambiguities further blur the relation between Church and State.
Where might this decision lead? If officials can step away from their official roles to pray privately after football games, we may find them stepping out of their roles to display private worship at school concerts, dances, and other school activities. It is not unimaginable to foresee the Court additionally permitting officials to pray aloud on these occasions and once again for prayers to be sanctioned in classrooms.
Moreover, if school officials can lead extra-role prayers, public officials in any branch of local or state government may choose to lead prayers in public. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of states and school districts are already moving on implementing prayers in public schools and public meetings.[ii] Authorization granted to public officials by the Court in this case risks saturating our public spaces with religious practices, contrary to the Founders’ intent.
It also matters that many of our communities have diverse religious populations. Residents belonging to Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, and other faiths, in addition to a number of Christian denominations as well as non-affiliated persons, live in Kitsap County where the coach’s praying occurred. Undoubtedly, persons of these and other belief systems may make their homes here in Westwood and more broadly in Norfolk County.
Whatever the belief system of the football coach, it would seem that persons of other faiths also might want to pray briefly, quietly, and privately at public events, or in classrooms and meetings, setting up competition for displays of belief. It is also easy to foresee that persons of a minority faith may feel subordinated and resent persons of a majority faith practicing their faith publicly. The Court may wish it differently, but this and related Court decisions are likely to heighten stereotyping and competition, if not outright conflict, between faith groups. Because individuals are often passionate about their religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, bringing religion into the public sphere creates fertile ground for social conflict, risking community solidarity and cohesion and ultimately restricting freedom of expression for all.
Rather than obstructing religious freedom as the Supreme Court appears to believe, prohibiting state sponsorship of religion acts as a guardian of that freedom for everyone. If there is a slippery slope with respect to state involvement in religious affairs, the Supreme Court appears to have taken a significant step downward.
The Court should commit itself to protecting everyone’s religious freedom and to maintaining community stability by keeping the state out of religious affairs and keeping religious preferences out of the public’s business. We need the Court to restore religious freedom to our residents and to our communities, as initially intended and as practiced for several hundred years.
[i] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
[ii]https://tinyurl.com/5dvaxe99
Editor's note: Westwood Minute welcomes John Aram, a retired professor of management policy, and a recent resident of Westwood, as a Contributor. Professor Aram's opinions are his own. Westwood Minute takes no position on the opinion articles that it publishes, but seeks accurate and thoughtful commentary on topics that matter to our community, from a variety of differing viewpoints. Reply with your reaction below, or submit another perspective to WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
