Leslie Rutledge continues her practice of globbing onto distant litigation as long as it provides a partisan opportunity for state-paid promotion of, well, Leslie Rutledge.
Last week's subject was the always-inciteful issue of religious liberty, one of the amazing foundations of our nation's birth. That also makes it ripe for political manipulation, too often by people who celebrate such liberties as long as it's primarily Christianity being advanced.
Rutledge promoted the legal appeals of Joseph Kennedy, a Seattle-area high school football assistant coach. Seven years ago, he was discipline after refusing his school district's request to stop leading mid-field prayers involving players after each game.
People who are not believers should realize that for a person of faith, a prayer is a one of the most meaningful acts possible. People being able to pray their prayers isn't the issue. But when does a public employee's actions go too far in seeking to influence, in this case, young players in his charge toward a certain faith?
Does faith demand a prayer at midfield? Will a petition to the Almighty only be received if it's done on the 50-yard-line? Or is it possible this is about more than a man's personal prayer? Are players put in a position of coercion from peer pressure because of the coach's actions? Does a coach have an unassailable right to stroll to the middle of the school district-owned field and engage in his prayer?
Where is the line? If the coach walks to a quiet spot and kneels in prayer, that's a individual expression of faith. And if his son, the team's quarterback, joins him, that's just a family moment. Is it OK when it becomes 45 players? When does that coach-led demonstration become coercion of, say, a Buddhist punter, a Muslim lineman, an agnostic running back or kids who profess no faith at all?
Expression of faith is protected by the First Amendment. The issue gets complicated when a public employee, whose salary is paid by taxpayers of all faiths, uses that position to become a leader of prayers in a public spectacle that can be easily viewed as trying to spread his faith.
Undoubtedly, a constitutional line exists that should not be crossed. Lawsuits arise because there are serious disagreements of where that line is or ought to be.
Let's assume for a moment that the football coach believes in God, but refers to God as Allah. Let's consider how it might be perceived if that coach walked to the middle of the field after each game and turned to face toward Mecca before kneeling. Let's think about the reaction that might happen in, say, Springdale or Harrison or Siloam Springs if some of the coach's players were moved to join the Muslim observance at mid-field.
Would parents celebrate the coach's liberty or would they clamor for the athletic director and school board to put a stop to his undue influence on their kids' malleable young minds?
Is it conceivable that a player would fear, say, a loss of playing time if he didn't join the majority in the coach's prayers? Impressionable young people succumb to lesser or imagined pressures.
The school district tried to accommodate Kennedy's desire to pray by offering a private place for his prayers. He declined, which suggests he's involved in exactly the behavior school districts need to guard against -- using school functions and facilities to spread one's religious beliefs.
As a Christian, I want people to hear about the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I want Christians to be influential, perhaps more by actions than words. Using a public position to amplify one's faith to others? From a biblical perspective, I'd say one-on-one faith sharing is more powerful than any big show of defiance at the 50-yard-line.