So Exactly What Speech Does the First Amendment Protect?

No Indoctrination in Public Schools Unless It's Christian

A football coach in Bremerton, Washington is suing the school district he worked for because they suspended him for not following their directive, ordering him not to go to the middle of the football field after a game and kneel in prayer.  Initially, he did this after every game, alone, but as he continued the practice, players and others were encouraged to join him.  Eventually, it became an issue when parents complained that their kids who were players felt pressured to join him.  The former assistant coach Joe Kennedy, insists that joining him was voluntary, but the prayers took place on the school's football field and some of the players said they felt that if they didn't join in, they would lose playing time or be treated differently than those who did.  

The Constitution is pretty clear about religious freedom.  

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

So the question here is whether or not the coach going to the middle of the football field, kneeling in prayer constitutes a "government establishment of religion," or whether it is his free exercise of his religious beliefs.  The coach is a paid employee of a public school district, which is a government institution.  The field is school property, and the administration has the right to control how it is used.  

There is no law that says he can't pray, but since it has become a visible, public expression of a religious faith, specifically the Coach's Christian preference, has it crossed that boundary of "establishment"?  He has insisted that there is no coercion or requirement for anyone to join him.  He wasn't suspended from his position for praying, he was suspended for failing to follow the administration's directive telling him not to publicly kneel on the field after a game and pray, inviting others to join in.  They certainly have the prerogative to direct an employee's activity while he is on duty on their property, especially if they can prevent those employees from teaching about controversial subjects like critical race theory, sexual orientation or gender identity.  

It is most definitely religious influence, specifically Christian influence, prompting state laws against teachers discussing gender identity, sexual orientation or critical race theory in classes or at school.  Isn't it a violation of the establishment clause to pass laws which favor Christian perspective over other perspectives?  That's a rhetorical question, and it shouldn't require a court action or decision to determine.  Of course it is.  

And if a school district has the right to determine the content of its curriculum and instruction, and the government determines that it will not teach CRT, nor any content related to human sexuality, then to be fair, and in compliance with the law, it can not teach any Christian principle or perspective pertaining to any subject.  If teachers can be directed not to teach CRT or to "not say gay," then they should also be instructed not to pray or exhibit any religious belief or expression while they are at school.  If we believe in equal protection under law, then silencing teachers should include prayers in the center of a school-owned football field after a school event.  

Do We Have a Supreme Court That Will Uphold the Law? 

I don't have much confidence that this Supreme Court, with widely variant qualifications considered in the nomination and selection of justices, some of which do not have adequate education or experience to serve, will uphold the law.  Several of them are steeped in a fascist perspective, rather than a democratic one, and will be inclined to favor Christian beliefs over other religions or absence of religious beliefs.  With cases against the Florida "Don't Say Gay" law making their way through the courts even as we speak, along with this case in Washington state, they are going to have the opportunity to rule on this.  

There is a deeper question of whether the restriction of speech when it comes to CRT, gender identity and sexual orientation constitutes government "establishment of religion."  Being against principles related to all three of those areas is clearly and distinctly based on religious teaching.  Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have very distinct and clear principles related to all three of these issues.  I would go so far as to say that Christian opposition to Critical Race Theory is based on their belief that the Bible teaches white supremacy.  Not all Christians accept that, but the philosophical argument against it is a straw man, based on a very distorted and false representation of CRT that is connected to the white supremacist argument.  

The Football Coach's Actions Are Inconsistent with Christian Doctrine and Theology

Defiance of a directive from the school administration to stop going to the middle of their football field to pray after a game is an action that is disobedient to the Biblical narrative.  Two of the apostles of the early Christian church who wrote with the spiritual authority given to them by God write about the spiritual discipline of obedience to the governing authorities.  Paul makes these references in Romans 13:1-7, a clear statement that says governing authorities have been instituted by God and "Whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed."  

In Titus 3:1, Paul writes to one of his proteges who was a pastor of a church on Crete, "Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle and to show every courtesy to everyone."  So from his perspective, it's about the Christian's testimony to their faith in Christ, not about their own desires.  There's no disobedience to or denial of belief in God represented by following the administration's instructions not to go to the center of the field to pray after a game.  By making a public spectacle out of his disobedience to the school authorities, he is disobeying these principles of scripture. 

Peter says the same thing in I Peter 2:13-17.  And remember, these apostles are not writing to the citizens of a democracy with religious and speech freedom.  They are writing to those who, for the most part, were not even citizens of the Roman Empire.  

Social Issues Have the Ability to Push the Political Pendulum Both Ways

There's little that has done as much to motivate Democratic and moderate independent voters in Florida, who represent half the electorate than Desantis' "Don't Say Gay" law.  That and the redistricting of Florida's representative districts, have sparked fundraising and get out the vote efforts that appear to be as active as those which pushed the state to turning blue back in 2008 and kept it there for eight years.  In order to carve up districts with a large African-American presence, some "safe" GOP districts had to go to a more marginal GOP majority which, in a mid-term election with hot button issues like this as a motivating factor, could easily backfire.  There's some polling data to indicate that this is already happening.  

The mistaken perspective that a majority of American voters will favor the kinds of Christian influences like open, public prayer will cost the GOP.  It's not just in the "blue states" where large numbers of voters have turned out to vote against this kind of constitutional violation.  States like Colorado and Nevada have become even deeper blue than they were over this kind of politics and it has substantially whittled down the Republican majorities in several other states, most notably Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina.  The racial overtones of CRT opposition will have a major impact in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where a 3% increase in African American turnout in the midterms will be enough to flip lots of legislative seats and the federal positions.  

It is a myth, now perpetuated among many Christians, that their faith is being persecuted and threatened by the government because of "all of the restrictions placed on it."  What restrictions?  Name one.  Christians are as free as they ever were in this country to practice their faith as they choose and they are as free from persecution as they have ever been.  There are as many practicing Christians in Congress, the courts, the state legislatures, as there have ever been.  But that kind of freedom doesn't motivate votes.