What this case did was show that the weak need not fear the strong because the strong are not always malign nor even aggressive. This dovetails with the obvious outcomes of victim politics when promoted by people who, as the saying goes, make it harder for actual victims: which is to say, just because you claim to be or even are a victim doesn’t mean you’re right or entitled.
Just look at the dissenting opinion. There was fear expressed that this decision would "open the door to much more coercive prayer in our public schools," but coercion against prayer has been steadily rising until now. Congress isn't allowed to do either one. But it allegedly also "sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion." Look, that very same entanglement is what was undone here. Coach Kennedy was penalized for praying on his own after the game--off duty, that is, when he is no longer acting as an agent of the school. It's not reasonable to expect someone to be an on-duty representative of some organization 24/7, even if you can demand more from them in limited ways.
The First Amendment restricts Congress from impeding or promoting religion. Okay, a public school employee is an agent of the state, after a fashion. Can he stay silent and not intimidate students who don't share his faith? Yes, more or less, probably. But that contributes to a chilling effect on the free expression of religion by people who is share his faith, which is happening all over the West. And what about people of other faiths? Some will be heartened to see anything they recognize as religious, and be encouraged to express and share theirs. Others will be intimidated not for being irreligious but not fitting into Kennedy's brand. But if Kennedy accommodated them, what about the ones he's now leaving out? How can he be sensitive specifically to each of them--sectarian and nonsectarian--without running the risk of excluding any of them--nonsectarian or sectarian?
This is why Congress isn't supposed to meddle at all; why our government is minimalistic in the first place. Mostly it's best to leave the tolerating up to the individuals. Otherwise we end up with that scene in "Life of Brian" where the crowd Brian throws a shoe at is arguing about what the shoe means, only instead of a shoe it's civil rights.
Did some of his students feel forced to sit in, a la peer pressure? Apparently so. But unfortunately that's human nature--we're social animals. Student athletes get pressured to drink underage all the time, and while that's not reflected in the First Amendment, it's against much more specific laws, and that kind of behavior is often ignored until the star quarterback drives home drunk right over the head cheerleader. Did anyone approach the coach to say "hey, no offense but I'm not comfortable getting dragged into this; is this an expectation, or am I going to be all right on and off the field if I don't participate?"
I can see some kids not being comfortable even bringing it up. But none? And no parents?
I don't know all the details, but apparently the problem started when Kennedy's school district asked him to stop out of fear for litigation--another instance of "there isn't an issue, but there's fear of a possibility of an issue." Which smells more like a disgruntled school board member than a principal who has received some difficult phone calls from people who followed up with mail on fancy letterhead.
Actually it didn't even start there; Kennedy started praying on his own, and students started joining him. When he was asked to stop praying in the locker room and on the field, he did, but continued praying by himself after the game. Apparently that was too much.
Please. This is not some high-profile representative of a lofty organization abusing his power to tarnish the organization's reputation. This is a high school football coach. He's allowed to have a private life.
Even if people can see him having it.
No comments:
Post a Comment