Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"

[pogi]

I like how this article articulates the problem with Christian nationalism. 

Quote

What is the problem with nationalism?

Humanity is not easily divisible into mutually distinct cultural units. Cultures overlap and their borders are fuzzy. Since cultural units are fuzzy, they make a poor fit as the foundation for political order. Cultural identities are fluid and hard to draw boundaries around, but political boundaries are hard and semipermanent. Attempting to found political legitimacy on cultural likeness means political order will constantly be in danger of being felt as illegitimate by some group or other. Cultural pluralism is essentially inevitable in every nation.

Is that really a problem, or just an abstract worry?

It is a serious problem. When nationalists go about constructing their nation, they have to define who is, and who is not, part of the nation. But there are always dissidents and minorities who do not or cannot conform to the nationalists’ preferred cultural template. In the absence of moral authority, nationalists can only establish themselves by force. Scholars are almost unanimous that nationalist governments tend to become authoritarian and oppressive in practice. For example, in past generations, to the extent that the United States had a quasi-established official religion of Protestantism, it did not respect true religious freedom. Worse, the United States and many individual states used Christianity as a prop to support slavery and segregation.

Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation and they want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country. Some have advocated for an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage, others to reinstitute prayer in public schools. Some work to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula, including that America has a special relationship with God or has been “chosen” by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions specifically to prevent a change to American religious and ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Some want to empower the government to take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior.

Quote

Christian nationalism tends to treat other Americans as second-class citizens. If it were fully implemented, it would not respect the full religious liberty of all Americans. Empowering the state through “morals legislation” to regulate conduct always carries the risk of overreaching, setting a bad precedent, and creating governing powers that could be used later be used against Christians. Additionally, Christian nationalism is an ideology held overwhelmingly by white Americans, and it thus tends to exacerbate racial and ethnic cleavages. In recent years, the movement has grown increasingly characterized by fear and by a belief that Christians are victims of persecution. Some are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to fight, physically, to preserve America’s identity, an argument that played into the January 6 riot.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html

Please vote accordingly.  Nationalism in any form is a national threat to our liberty. 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's the same principle here.  Other members of the coaching staff were allowed to relax, let down their hair, take off their public employee hat, opine on local matters, greet personal friends and family, engage in activities outside of the purview of their employment.  After allowing that permission, it cannot then withhold the permission if the activity undertaken turns out to be religious. 

We're not talking about relaxing, opining, etc. We're talking about a school employee, in school uniform, at a school event, on school property, leading children in his charge in an activity (it could have just as easily been a postgame rally and fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee). I can't think of a definition by which that is "private" behavior. So, I will simply conclude you and I do not agree and will not agree. There must be restrictions on behavior of school leaders in their official capacities, and this is just a small step toward a further erosion of this principle.

I know, people are going to say I'm anti-religion, which is nonsense. I've never been in favor of school prayer or school-sanctioned religious activity. As I said, I suppose it comes from growing up LDS in a largely Jewish town, but even if that hadn't been the case, I believe in the long-held principle of separation of church and state, which doesn't just derive from a "stinking letter."

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Is the bus open to any member of the public who wants to ride it?  If not, then no, he can't lead a prayer there. 

If the school is allowing members of the public access and/or resources to speak, it cannot then deny the same to members of the public who would use that access or those resources for religious purposes.

When I was a teenager in Colorado in the 90's, my first two years of seminary were held in our ward meetinghouse.  But then a court case ruled that if the school was open for outside organizations to use before or after instructional hours, it could not then deny the same access to religious groups.  My last two years of seminary were then held in a Social Studies room in my high school before the school day began.

It's the same principle here.  Other members of the coaching staff were allowed to relax, let down their hair, take off their public employee hat, opine on local matters, greet personal friends and family, engage in activities outside of the purview of their employment.  After allowing that permission, it cannot then withhold the permission if the activity undertaken turns out to be religious. 

I'm not arguing for prayer in classrooms, in the cafeteria, on the school bus, on in any other specific venue.  But if the school itself decides to allow private actions or private expressions on its property or by its employees, it has very little discretion about WHICH actions or expressions it will allow.  It's all or nothing. 

Was  your seminary class led by a school employee?

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

We're not talking about relaxing, opining, etc. We're talking about a school employee, in school uniform, at a school event, on school property, leading children in his charge in an activity (it could have just as easily been a postgame rally and fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee). I can't think of a definition by which that is "private" behavior. So, I will simply conclude you and I do not agree and will not agree. There must be restrictions on behavior of school leaders in their official capacities, and this is just a small step toward a further erosion of this principle.

I know, people are going to say I'm anti-religion, which is nonsense. I've never been in favor of school prayer or school-sanctioned religious activity. As I said, I suppose it comes from growing up LDS in a largely Jewish town, but even if that hadn't been the case, I believe in the long-held principle of separation of church and state, which doesn't just derive from a "stinking letter."

I agree in part.  The school should not allow ANY member of the coaching staff to act as private individuals while in uniform.  That should mean no greeting of personal friends, no talking abut the local city council race, no opining on politics, religion, or multi-level marketing schemes.  If they are in uniform, they are representing the school and extraneous, private speech ought to have been circumscribed.  Any such discussions could give the false impression to impressionable youth that the speech is approved by the employer. 

But the public employer cannot grant that permission to its employees on a discretionary basis. It's not even a religious liberty thing.  It cannot allow permission for its employees to engage in discussions about any non-work subject EXCEPT for local BBQ, best haberdasheries, or the state rodeo circuit.  Once it grants permission for its employees to act or speak outside the purview of their employment, they have very little discretion about which topics their employees can and cannot engage in.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Was  your seminary class led by a school employee?

If the stake had called a school employee to be a seminary teacher, would the high school then have had veto power over the church calling? 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I agree in part.  The school should not allow ANY member of the coaching staff to act as private individuals while in uniform.  That should mean no greeting of personal friends, no talking abut the local city council race, no opining on politics, religion, or multi-level marketing schemes.  If they are in uniform, they are representing the school and extraneous, private speech ought to have been circumscribed.  Any such discussions could give the false impression to impressionable youth that the speech is approved by the employer. 

But the public employer cannot grant that permission to its employees on a discretionary basis. It's not even a religious liberty thing.  It cannot allow permission for its employees to engage in discussions about any non-work subject EXCEPT for local BBQ, best haberdasheries, or the state rodeo circuit.  Once it grants permission for its employees to act or speak outside the purview of their employment, they have very little discretion about which topics their employees can and cannot engage in.  

There is nothing in the Constitution or legal precedents about greeting personal friends, talking about the local city council race, opining on politics, or anything else like that. There is precedent for not having state employees leading children in religious activities while on the job. Apparently, you and I disagree as to whether they are on the job. I think it's fairly obvious, but so do you.

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If the stake had called a school employee to be a seminary teacher, would the high school then have had veto power over the church calling? 

I meant, Was the seminary teacher being paid by the school district to teach the seminary class? That would be an appropriate analogy. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There is nothing in the Constitution or legal precedents about greeting personal friends, talking about the local city council race, opining on politics, or anything else like that.

Nothing except "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

Prayer is an exceedingly easy issue with regards to religious liberty.  It's pure speech and nothing but speech.  All the same caselaw and judicial doctrine regarding free speech also applies to issues regarding prayer.  And since content-based speech restrictions are highly suspect, restrictions on prayer are, too.  Where an employer grants latitude to its employees' speech, it cannot do so based on the content of that speech. 

Other religious liberty issues are much more grey, much more debatable, in my mind.  Issues regarding clothing, holidays, provision of services, etc all interact with employment law in much more complicated ways.   

 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Nothing except "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

Prayer is an exceedingly easy issue with regards to religious liberty.  It's pure speech and nothing but speech.  All the same caselaw and judicial doctrine regarding free speech also applies to issues regarding prayer.  And since content-based speech restrictions are highly suspect, restrictions on prayer are, too.  Where an employer grants latitude to its employees' speech, it cannot do so based on the content of that speech. 

Other religious liberty issues are much more grey, much more debatable, in my mind.  Issues regarding clothing, holidays, provision of services, etc all interact with employment law in much more complicated ways.   

 

I too see it as a religious liberty issue, but more in terms of the Establishment clause rather than freedom of speech. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, Russell said:

Have times changed so much that a person in uniform must take off that uniform before considered to be speaking as that individual and not an employee of his employer?  Tight lipped saying nothing personal until that uniform is off?  I hope you exaggerate. 

I would see it as a human rights issue.  Employers should not have so much control over an employee that the employee feels he or she can't speak as he normally would either with or without a uniform. I would quit such a job if I had an employer like that.

I don't know about uniforms, but it's fairly standard for employers to dictate what its employees can and cannot say while engaging in official work duties.  Even as a free speech absolutist, I have no problems with an employer insisting that its employees accurately reflect the employer's values and views and not the employee's while engaged on the employer's business.  Further, when engaging in activities while off duty, emplolyers often insist that employees ensure that they are not seen as a representative of the employer.  If I find any fault in the football coach herein discussed, it's that he did not do enough to distinguish when his public duties ended and his private actions began.

Here's a section from my own employer's employee handbook.  The name of my organization has been changed to SME (which now stands for Stormin' Mormon's Employer). 

Quote

 

Unless specifically relevant to the employee’s position within SME, no SME employee should identify him or herself as such while engaging in personal political activities.  Accordingly, agency employees are prohibited from identifying themselves as SME employees or otherwise suggesting that their actions are taken on behalf of SME while engaging in any political activity other than the private expression of personal opinion, registering as a member of a political party, signing of nominating initiatives, referendum or recall petitions and voting in any special, primary or general election. To the contrary, employees should take action to ensure that there is no confusion about the capacity in which they represent themselves, such as by stating “I am here in my personal capacity.” 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If I find any fault in the football coach herein discussed, it's that he did not do enough to distinguish when his public duties ended and his private actions began.

 

This is a big part of it for me: we seem to be leaving it to students to determine when a school authority figure is speaking as a school employee or as a private individual. That seems a tall order. I can envision a principal leading a prayer on the front lawn of a school 5 minutes before the bell rings and claiming he or she is just acting as a private individual exercising free speech. Not really buying that.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I too see it as a religious liberty issue, but more in terms of the Establishment clause rather than freedom of speech. 

I think this is a fair point to raise, though I'm not sure it works out in the end, at least in terms of constitutional analysis.

One of the most important aspects of business law is the concept of "scope of employment."  That is, an employee (the "agent") is hired to do a job for the employer (the "principal"), and based on that relationship the actions of the agent can be imputed onto the principal, based on whether the agent was acting within the "scope of employment."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Principal-Agent Relationship

By 

JAMES CHEN

 

Updated April 05, 2022

Reviewed by 

MARGARET JAMES

What Is the Principal-Agent Relationship?

The principal-agent relationship is an arrangement in which one entity legally appoints another to act on its behalf.1 In a principal-agent relationship, the agent acts on behalf of the principal and should not have a conflict of interest in carrying out the act. The relationship between the principal and the agent is called the "agency," and the law of agency establishes guidelines for such a relationship.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A principal appoints an agent to act on their behalf and in their best interest. Examples include an investor picking a fund manager or someone hiring an attorney for legal work. 
• There should be no conflict of interest between the two, if there is, this creates a principal-agent problem. 
• The principal-agent relationship is expressed clearly through a written contract or is implied through actions.

Because the agent is, while on the job, acting in a representative capacity, the agent's conduct and speech can be attributed to the principal if the conduct/speech is found to be within the "scope of employment" of the agent.  See here:

Quote

Respondeat superior ("Let the superior answer") is a legal principle that dictates when an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee. Employers should worry about this rule when the employee commits a tort or harmful act when the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the incident. The term "scope of employment" is when an employee is doing work assigned by their employer or is completing a task that is subject to the employer's control. To test whether the conduct that led to the incident is within the scope of employment, one must determine:

1. If it was the type of task the employee was employed to perform
2. It occurred flexibly within the authorized work time period
3. The incident was not unreasonably far away from the employer authorized location
4. The incident was motivated, at least in part, for the purpose of serving the employer

If these four factors are found to be true, the employer will have to answer for the tort. 

If we are discussing the football coach referenced in Stargazer's post in an "Establishment Clause" context, then it may be helpful to apply the foregoing test to see whether the coach was praying in his capacity as an agent of the school (and, hence, of the government):

1. If it was the type of task the employee was employed to perform

Praying is pretty clearly not part of the job of the football coach.  He wasn't hired to do that.  And he prayed after the football game, suggesting he was "off the clock."

2. It occurred flexibly within the authorized work time period

My understanding is that almost all high school football games are in the evenings, not during "business hours."  And while the coach is obviously paid to participate in the football game, after the game he would seem to be "off the clock" (not "within the authorized work time period").

3. The incident was not unreasonably far away from the employer authorized location

This one was on the football field.  In the workplace, so to speak.

4. The incident was motivated, at least in part, for the purpose of serving the employer

I think the coach was religiously devout, and that he was acting in his individual capacity, and not as an agent/representative of the school when he, after the football games, knelt and prayed.  It is difficult to characterize this conduct as having, either all or even in part, "the purpose of serving the employer."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. If it was the type of task the employee was employed to perform

Praying is pretty clearly not part of the job of the football coach.  He wasn't hired to do that.  And he prayed after the football game, suggesting he was "off the clock."

2. It occurred flexibly within the authorized work time period

My understanding is that almost all high school football games are in the evenings, not during "business hours."  And while the coach is obviously paid to participate in the football game, after the game he would seem to be "off the clock" (not "within the authorized work time period").

3. The incident was not unreasonably far away from the employer authorized location

This one was on the football field.  In the workplace, so to speak.

4. The incident was motivated, at least in part, for the purpose of serving the employer

I think the coach was religiously devout, and that he was acting in his individual capacity, and not as an agent/representative of the school when he, after the football games, knelt and prayed.  It is difficult to characterize this conduct as having, either all or even in part, "the purpose of serving the employer."

Thanks,

-Smac

1 & 2 are the issue for me: How many of the kids he was asking to pray with him understood he was "off the clock" and could reasonably separate his "private" behavior (at a school event, on school property, in a school uniform, leading students) from his actions as coach? I'd much rather err on the side of caution in this issue, as blurring these lines will, in my view, inevitably result in even more admixture of religion into the public schools. 

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't know about uniforms, but it's fairly standard for employers to dictate what its employees can and cannot say while engaging in official work duties.  Even as a free speech absolutist, I have no problems with an employer insisting that its employees accurately reflect the employer's values and views and not the employee's while engaged on the employer's business. 

I am not even opposed to an employer taking outside-of-work conduct/speech into consideration.  The First Amendment protects individuals against government encroachments on Free Speech.  Private actors are typically not situated to violate the First Amendment.  So a private employer can, broadly speaking, punish an employee for his "speech."  There are some constraints, though:

Quote

A private employer’s right to impose consequences

So can an employer take disciplinary action against an individual employee because of what that person says? For private employers, the answer is most definitely “yes,” as long as the employer remains consistent and non-discriminatory in its decision-making regarding discipline for speech.  It doesn’t matter if the speech was political or not, offensive or not, made while at work or on one’s own personal time.  Employees of private employers are subject to the private employer’s rules, and the First Amendment offers no protection.  However, private employers are not free to discipline employees for speech if that speech is affirmatively protected by another statute.  For example, private employers cannot discipline employees for engaging in concerted activity regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, nor can they discipline employees for engaging in protected opposition to discrimination or harassment.  These types of speech are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than the First Amendment.

And here:

Quote

"Employees working in the private sector often [don't understand] that the constitutional First Amendment right to free speech applies to government employees but not employees working for businesses," said Christopher Olmsted, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in San Diego.

But that doesn't mean that businesses can curb all employee speech. For instance, private-sector employees have the right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This applies to workers in both union and nonunion settings.

The NLRA protects employees' right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment, said Steve Hernández, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg in Los Angeles. For example, workers are protected if they discuss their wages with each other, decide they're not being paid enough and seek raises from their employer.

Employees also have the right to talk about possible unlawful conduct in the workplace. Under various federal laws, employees may complain about harassment, discrimination, workplace safety violations and other issues. "However, employees don't have the freedom or right to express racist, sexist or other discriminatory comments where such comments constitute violations of these laws," Olmsted noted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

1 & 2 are the issue for me: How many of the kids he was asking to pray with him understood he was "off the clock" and could reasonably separate his "private" behavior (at a school event, on school property, in a school uniform, leading students) from his actions as coach?

Well, they could ask him.  

Also, in 2022 it's kind of obvious that on-the-clock praying by a teacher is not likely to be within his job duties.  I think that would be apparent to most high school students.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'd much rather err on the side of caution in this issue, as blurring these lines will, in my view, inevitably result in even more admixture of religion into the public schools. 

When "err{ing} on the side of caution" amounts to a violation of the First Amendment, that's a bit too much caution.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, they could ask him.  

Also, in 2022 it's kind of obvious that on-the-clock praying by a teacher is not likely to be within his job duties.  I think that would be apparent to most high school students.

When "err{ing} on the side of caution" amounts to a violation of the First Amendment, that's a bit too much caution.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I'm not seeing the violation of the First Amendment. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I'm not seeing the violation of the First Amendment. 

The government fired the coach because he prayed. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The government fired the coach because he prayed. 

Thanks,

-Smac

No, they fired him because he led students under his charge in a prayer at a school function on school property while acting as their coach. The idea that he's somehow "off the clock" because the game is over is problematic, to say the least. 

[jkwilliams]

Maybe it's a geographical thing. As I said, my Utah cousins are thrilled with the recent football prayer ruling. But I'm on a Facebook group consisting of people who grew up in my ward in California. Ward members attended 3 different high schools, where there were at most 10-20 members in each school at any given time. My school had the smallest number of LDS students. The other day, someone brought up the court ruling, and the reaction from people I grew up with (I think only 2 of us are lapsed Mormons) was universal disapproval. A direct quote from a friend of mine: "Imagine what that would have been like at [our high school]? At least our football team was terrible, so it wouldn't have affected us that much." Everyone agreed that we were marginalized enough as it is, being the weird people who weren't allowed to eat peanut butter or do anything on Sundays and were forced to go to church before school every morning. Having our religious outlier status reinforced by a coach like that would not have been appreciated. 

To me, it comes down to whether he was "off the clock." To my mind, as long as he was at a school event, on school property, leading students, he was acting "on the clock." Obviously, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court didn't agree.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, they fired him because he led students under his charge in a prayer at a school function on school property while acting as their coach.

Apparently not.

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The idea that he's somehow "off the clock" because the game is over is problematic, to say the least. 

Not so problematic.  He won, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Apparently not.

Not so problematic.  He won, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know he won. That does not mean the decision was correct. Roe won her case, after all, and I doubt you think it was correct.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Russell said:

This statement plus your earlier statement "The First Amendment protects individuals against government encroachments on Free Speech" seems to indicate a clear violation of the coach's First Amendment rights.  Did the courts see that violation clearly? 

The lower courts seemed not to, as they ruled against the coach.  The Ninth Circuit applied a five-part analysis from a 1968 case, Pickering v. Board of Education:

Quote

In  Pickering,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  “[t]he  problem”  in  a  public-employee  free  speech case, “is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”  Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).   “[S]ince Pickering,” we wrote, the law on this    topic    “has    evolved    dramatically,    if    sometimes    inconsistently.      Unraveling Pickering’s   tangled   history   reveals  a  sequential  five-step  series  of  questions.”    Eng  v.  Cooley,  552  F.3d  1062,  1070  (9th  Cir.  2009).    Those  questions are:

Quote

(1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public   concern;  
(2)   whether   the   plaintiff   spoke as a private citizen or public employee;
(3)  whether  the  plaintiff’s  protected  speech  was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action;
(4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of  the  general  public;  and  
(5)  whether  the  state    would    have    taken    the    adverse    employment action even absent the protected speech.

Id.  At issue here are factors (2) and (4).  If Kennedy spoke as  a  public  employee  when  he  engaged  in  demonstrative religious activity at the fifty-yard line necessarily in view of the  players  and  fans  who  stayed  to  the  conclusion  of  the  game, his speech is unprotected.  See id. at 1071.  Kennedy carries  the  burden  of  proof  on  factor  (2).    Id.    Similarly,  if  BSD   had   adequate   justification   for   treating   Kennedy   differently  from  other  members  of  the  public,  Kennedy’s  claim fails.  Id. at 1072.  BSD carries the burden of proof on factor (4).  Id.

However, until Kennedy, the Pickering analysis had only been applied in Free Speech cases, whereas Kennedy addressed the Free Speech and Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.  As far as I can tell, the Ninth Circuit did not even cite Lemon.  And in any event, SCOTUS effectively overruled Lemon.

I liked this part of the Kennedy decision: 

Quote

There is no conflict between the constitutional commands of the First Amendment in this case. There is only the “mere shadow” of a conflict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Establishment Clause. {} A government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations do not justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

 

Apparently not.

Not so problematic.  He won, after all.

 

I know he won. That does not mean the decision was correct. Roe won her case, after all, and I doubt you think it was correct.

Fair point.  SCOTUS is not perfect.  That said, I think the decision was correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Fair point.  SCOTUS is not perfect.  That said, I think the decision was correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

That is quite obvious. I’m just worried about marginalized kids being further stigmatized by being expected to participate in religious activities at school functions. This decision really blurs the lines. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe it's a geographical thing. As I said, my Utah cousins are thrilled with the recent football prayer ruling. But I'm on a Facebook group consisting of people who grew up in my ward in California. Ward members attended 3 different high schools, where there were at most 10-20 members in each school at any given time. My school had the smallest number of LDS students. The other day, someone brought up the court ruling, and the reaction from people I grew up with (I think only 2 of us are lapsed Mormons) was universal disapproval. A direct quote from a friend of mine: "Imagine what that would have been like at [our high school]? At least our football team was terrible, so it wouldn't have affected us that much." Everyone agreed that we were marginalized enough as it is, being the weird people who weren't allowed to eat peanut butter or do anything on Sundays and were forced to go to church before school every morning. Having our religious outlier status reinforced by a coach like that would not have been appreciated. 

To me, it comes down to whether he was "off the clock." To my mind, as long as he was at a school event, on school property, leading students, he was acting "on the clock." Obviously, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court didn't agree.

Would the coach be held responsible if anything happened to the students at that time?  As in injured?  If so, seems to mr they are in his care because of his employment. 
 

There is a difference between interacting with other adults and interacting with students no matter what time of the working day it is, imo.  They need to differentiate between adult interaction which can be nonschool related even on school property vs interaction with students…which if on school property seems to always imply authority even if it was midnight and coach and student ran into each other running laps on the school track because neither could sleep.  That it is during a time period very close to where the coach was actually coaching only strengthens the sense of authority over the student.

I get that the school was absolving other employees of their duties as student supervisors at that time. But they allow private conversations between the adults between classes and coffee breaks whatever they are legally called and ‘time off’ as far as I know where teachers can use the restroom and make calls, but they are still considered supervising students at that time…the kids are expected to obey the teacher even if the teacher is on a break.  If a fire alarm goes off around noon, just because the teacher is on a lunch break doesn’t mean they get to run for the door and forget about the kids  

My guess is the coach would not be happy if a student was goofing off and playing with school equipment right next to the prayer area and the coach told him to stop as he could hurt himself or the equipment or just because he was being a jerk and the student ignored him based on the coach was on his own private time. Otoh, if off school property and the coach saw a student goofing off and being a jerk in a store, would either he or the student see him as having actual authority over the student where he could get the kid disciplined or even expelled for example if the student ignored his instruction to behave?

As long as there is an expectation of authority on either the coach or the students’ part, I think the coach is acting as an agent of the state and while they can be allowed to have private time by themselves or with other adults, as soon as any student under their authority is involved, it is on the clock paid employment.