Coach Joe Kennedy was recently fired from his position of assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying in the middle of the field after games.
As a follow-up to that story, Red Alert Politics talked with Brian Walsh, who is the president and founder of the Civil Rights Research Center, which is based in Washington, D.C. Walsh is not affiliated with Kennedy’s case in any way, but had some helpful insight as a scholar, attorney, and public policy and religious freedom expert.
Those opposing Kennedy’s decision to exercise his right to pray on the field include the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). In a Patheos blog post, Andrew L. Seidel, who is a staff attorney for FFRF, evokes the Establishment Clause.
To use the Establishment Clause in this case is not the correct way to go about it. “If you read the First Amendment, you realize that the Court’s doctrine of the Establishment Clause has been stretched beyond all recognition,” Walsh says.
Walsh repeatedly discussed how someone should not have to “extinguish” their religious freedom by taking a job.
“Neither your first amendment rights nor your other rights are extinguished by taking a job. And no one should have to choose between taking a job and living our their religious faith,” he said at one point.
That Kennedy’s prayers took place after the game seems to have no bearing for FFRF. It is still crucial to note that by the time Kennedy is praying, the football game has ended. Students can pray with him, or they can leave. Walsh also says that this situation is different from if Kennedy were praying in the classroom or locker room.
To suggest that the prayers were not truly voluntary then, as Seidel did in his blog post, doesn’t hold up.
When discussing how this issue has been viewed, and the concern that these prayers are an endorsement or that students are coerced, Walsh had a clear statement.
He mentioned that “the expansive view that you have to keep religion out of my sight or else I’m being coerced is an amorphous, ambiguous, divisive view of how religion should work in the public square.”
Another interesting point from Walsh is that of consistency. If we are in favor of allowing Kennedy to pray, then we ought to allow everyone else the right to pray.
And, the idea that Kennedy not be allowed to pray on the field, that he must do so in his own private home or in a room set aside for him, very much evokes the idea of repressive nations around the world.
FFRF has not merely expressed their view that Kennedy’s prayers are unconstitutional. Seidel has used Kennedy’s own faith against him, in his Patheos post as well as in a Facebook post. The post is his own and has been shared on the FFRF page as well.
When asked about such an argument, Walsh said it is “very hypocritical of FFRF to use theological argument in public debate about an issue of law and public policy.”
Kennedy is being represented by the Liberty Institute, which has expressed their support for him along with and provided updates on their website.
