Court rules high school football coach cannot pray on the field

Capt Gregory Prickett - I'd simply note that I did not defend the coach ... or his firing. What I did was attack the wording (that I quoted) of the 9th's ruling. As you are well aware, a circuit court's ruling has the potential to have implications well beyond the single case for which it was made ... as this ruling suggests.

LTC (Join to see) I have to disagree with you. I don't think that a soldier saying a prayer as a preparation for going into combat is even close to a high school coach going to the center of the field after a football game to pray.

PO3 Steven Sherrill - Perhaps ... how about a congressman praying in the Senate or House chambers ... or asking a blessing at a breakfast on the campaign trail? My issue is with the wording of the 9th's ruling ... and the reality that its ruling extends beyond the specific case before it.

LTC (Join to see) - Sadly that is typical of any government intervention. I really like your sentiment in regards to the scope of this ruling. I think you nailed it. They may look at the narrow without ever considering how it will be applied in a wide scale. The reality is this is something that should not have ever made the courts. His employer said "Pray all you want, just do it away from the public eye." He chose to disregard it, he was terminated. That is usually what happens when your boss tells you to do, or not to do something, and you do it anyway. Common sense should be applied. Unfortunately, common sense is rarely exhibited anymore. Additionally, it is a matter at odds with itself. It is the separation of church and state against the right to freedom of expression. I still think that this is about getting fifteen minutes of fame more than it is about a prayer.
Going to your question directly, it is all about context. For example using your congressman praying in the senate chamber, is that person calling for prayer, or is that person saying a quiet prayer in his seat? If a person calls for prayer on the floor of the senate, they are opening a can of worms. If they are sitting in their chair saying a prayer, and the camera happens to focus on them, then that is the media being sensationalist (I know shocking right). As for a breakfast on the campaign trail, if that congressman is saying grace, I have no problem with that. It is not them proselytizing it is them saying grace before a meal. No harm no foul. Likewise if that congressman is at a fundraiser at a Church, and there is a prayer, well no shit, a prayer in a church, again common sense. I don't even have a problem with a prayer at a ceremony honoring someone, as long as it is a prayer in their faith. For example if a Jewish soldier is killed, and being honored, I have no problem with a Jewish prayer opening the proceedings. It would be wrong if it was a Christian prayer. So the issue cannot be addressed with broad strokes as it has with the court case. It has to be a common sense thing. Common sense says if your boss tells you to stop, you stop or face the consequences of not.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Following that this could be written as two separate parts stating:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." (thereof - referring to something just mentioned) Interesting how that works.

Well considering that Cornell Law School LLI states the following: "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates."

Seems pretty straight forward to me, and I will go with my interpretation that what was done is still wrong and contradictory to the First Amendment to include the "Establishment Clause." And Yes it is a free exercise issue.

And yes, please check the legal use within and outside the Constitution of both the comma and semicolon, and the word or.
Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, yet.

I think some lawyers may need to go back to school and learn or relearn the legal interpretations of legal grammar rules.

And therein lays the issue:
Specially concurring, Judge M. Smith wrote separately to share his view that the school district’s actions were also justified to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.

And after reading the whole thing, it is still a stretch that it is a violation of the 'establishment clause' the clause states: ... shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,... That is definitely a stretch and also conflicts with "the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning."

But then of course everyone wants to play 'spin doctor,' when they do not agree with the plain language and meaning rules.