Clemson lawsuit...where have we heard this before?

[autigeremt 6,629]

WE have freedom of religion. Clemson Athletics does not. The problem with these cases arises IF (and ONLY IF) they are using it as what a reasonable observer would classify as an "official" religion. Clemson categorically denied it but did not provide evidence to back up that denial.

The interesting thing here is that they claim to be providing "reasonable accommodations" to people who do not want to participate. However, that implies that the majority religion (Christianity, in this case) IS the prevailing (read: one with power) religion of the athletic department.

If this were Notre Dame or Vanderbilt, it wouldn't be an issue - but Clemson is a state-sponsored school, and if it gives the appearance of favoring one religion over another then it runs afoul of the Lemon test.

I strongly disagree because religious freedom is still available to any player on the team. They are not obligated to participate and every recruit in the country has the choice in their own hand as to where they play. Clemson being state sponsored has no bearing because you can't discriminate based solely on how a school is partially funded. Notre Dame receives federal grants and received over 30 as part of the Stimulus in 2010.

[WarEagle84 0]

WE have freedom of religion. Clemson Athletics does not. The problem with these cases arises IF (and ONLY IF) they are using it as what a reasonable observer would classify as an "official" religion. Clemson categorically denied it but did not provide evidence to back up that denial.

The interesting thing here is that they claim to be providing "reasonable accommodations" to people who do not want to participate. However, that implies that the majority religion (Christianity, in this case) IS the prevailing (read: one with power) religion of the athletic department.

If this were Notre Dame or Vanderbilt, it wouldn't be an issue - but Clemson is a state-sponsored school, and if it gives the appearance of favoring one religion over another then it runs afoul of the Lemon test.

I strongly disagree because religious freedom is still available to any player on the team. They are not obligated to participate and every recruit in the country has the choice in their own hand as to where they play. Clemson being state sponsored has no bearing because you can't discriminate based solely on how a school is partially funded. Notre Dame receives federal grants and received over 30 as part of the Stimulus in 2010.

Legally it does make a difference. The first amendment starts with, "Congress shall make no law ..." (which has been interpreted as any government entity). A private school is not bound by this restriction, but a state school is.

[Mikey 16,603]

Most, if not all schools in the southeast are skating on the edge in this area. Sooner or later it will get into the courts and then we'll see what happens.

Freedom From Religion needs to realize We have Freedom Of Religion

This is exactly what I said as I was reading the article.

I said this earlier but it bears repeating: You cannot have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. Think about it.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

WE have freedom of religion. Clemson Athletics does not. The problem with these cases arises IF (and ONLY IF) they are using it as what a reasonable observer would classify as an "official" religion. Clemson categorically denied it but did not provide evidence to back up that denial.

The interesting thing here is that they claim to be providing "reasonable accommodations" to people who do not want to participate. However, that implies that the majority religion (Christianity, in this case) IS the prevailing (read: one with power) religion of the athletic department.

If this were Notre Dame or Vanderbilt, it wouldn't be an issue - but Clemson is a state-sponsored school, and if it gives the appearance of favoring one religion over another then it runs afoul of the Lemon test.

I strongly disagree because religious freedom is still available to any player on the team. They are not obligated to participate and every recruit in the country has the choice in their own hand as to where they play. Clemson being state sponsored has no bearing because you can't discriminate based solely on how a school is partially funded. Notre Dame receives federal grants and received over 30 as part of the Stimulus in 2010.

The past 60 or so years of jurisprudence on this matter disagrees with you. I covered this earlier in the thread - both Santa Fe 2000 and the Lee v Weisman cases established the coercion test in matters like these. To quote the Lee v Weisman opinion (written by Kennedy): "Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy."

There is also a pertinent section from the Abington School District v Schempp ruling: "The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony".

Again, just because the freedom is available to every player on the team doesn't mean that there is not coercion to participate, even if it is subtle peer pressure to do so. The threat of ostracism has been found over and over to be subtle coercion.

[Weegle777 78]

So if we look at the coercion by peer pressure hair splitting argument, this is very dangerous as far as setting a precedent for silencing all displays of faith. If this is how this is seen, then what's next? If I wear a cross necklace in public, will some doofus try to sue me claiming I am violating his rights? Slippery slope.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

So if we look at the coercion by peer pressure hair splitting argument, this is very dangerous as far as setting a precedent for silencing all displays of faith. If this is how this is seen, then what's next? If I wear a cross necklace in public, will some doofus try to sue me claiming I am violating his rights? Slippery slope.

Except you aren't exercising those rights in the guise of a state sponsored institution. There's an obvious difference between a display of faith, and leading someone else who is your subordinate in YOUR display of faith.

If it were a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope, then I'm pretty sure we'd have slid down it by now. As I said, Schempp and Engel decisions have been on the books since the 60s, and the Lemon test (as well as Lee and Santa Fe) have been on the books since 1977, 1992, and 2000.

[Weegle777 78]

So should AU stop the prayer circle?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

That depends on who initiates it; normally If it is student-led, then there is no constitutional issue with it. If the coaches bring everyone in to pray, then there's can be an issue with it.

(Caveat: All these cases have been in public schools, not colleges. I am interpreting them onto state-sponsored activities at the collegiate level, but there is not a decision yet that I know about. I'm just relaying what the cases say so far.)

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Here's a great article on the subject by Marquette Law Review that gives arguments on both sides. If you are interested in these sorts of things, it's worth the read. (.pdf file)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1104%26context%3Dsportslaw&ei=J-hXU8XNLoqI8AGc24DIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFdoo4AJ7i0wxXiWps1MnHtxKskaQ&sig2=B1-ls1bn0Zxthq5uA3xKIQ&bvm=bv.65177938,d.b2U

To me, the question I ask is: what would the reaction be if one of the players on the team stood with the rest of the team while they prayed but talked at a normal voice volume, maybe on a cell phone, or to a trainer? Does a student who is uncomfortable with the prayer, or is a different religion, feel like they must be quiet? Do they feel that way because they fear that there will be consequences (either by the coaches, or by their peers)?

[WarEagle84 0]

Here's a great article on the subject by Marquette Law Review that gives arguments on both sides. If you are interested in these sorts of things, it's worth the read. (.pdf file)

http://www.google.co....65177938,d.b2U

To me, the question I ask is: what would the reaction be if one of the players on the team stood with the rest of the team while they prayed but talked at a normal voice volume, maybe on a cell phone, or to a trainer? Does a student who is uncomfortable with the prayer, or is a different religion, feel like they must be quiet? Do they feel that way because they fear that there will be consequences (either by the coaches, or by their peers)?

Being respectful has nothing to do with coercion. I get very annoyed when I am near someone talking on a cell phone as if no one else was around. I wouldn't necessarily expect everyone to be silent while I was in a prayer group, but if you want to have a full-volume conversation, move a few steps away. Kinda like not talking in a library or a movie theater.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I fully agree with being respectful, but that's a red herring that doesn't address the constitutional question. Don't like the talking example? Fine, the person stands next to the group and does jumping jacks the entire time. The situation remains the same: the individual, in order to be perceived as "part of the team" (and the perception can be from 3 perspectives - by the objector, the team, or an outside observer) must comply with the religious exercise in some manner. The expectation that someone should remain silent (even if they are not participating) is precisely the reason why it's coercion.

[WarEagle84 0]

I don't necessarily expect silence, as long as whatever the non-participant is doing doesn't disrupt what the others are doing. If expecting one to be respectful of the activities others around them are participating in constitutes coercion, we are in a sad state indeed.

[Tiger 8,826]

I think the bottom line is whether or not players who do not subscribe to Christianity feel any sort of pressure to be in the group because the coaches co-sign it so heavily.

Also, if it was Islam or Judaism that Dabo was pushing would anyone feel the same way? Different? Indifferent?