AU-Naples

2024 ESSAY WINNER

JILLIAN PESKA

The Meaningful Separation of Church and State

All humans should strive to protect the greater good of others. I like to believe this was one of the ideologies the framers of our Constitution held when founding the United States Government and our First Amendment rights. Balance is attained when we acknowledge that, despite our differences, it is necessary to protect the freedoms and beliefs of those who identify as religious or not. We live in a pluralistic society. Of the hundreds of religions in America, it is immoral to subject people to one belief system.

In the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Supreme Court Case, the act of separating church and state in terms of the law is misconstrued. Our First Amendment consists of the Free Exercise Clause and The Establishment
Clause, both protecting the religious freedoms of others. The Free Exercise Clause makes sure that people can express their religion without negatively affecting others. The Establishment Clause restricts the government from pressing a specific religion upon the people. After
familiarizing myself with the “Syllabus” and other documents directly from the Supreme Court case, for context purposes, the facts are as follows. High school football coach Joseph Kennedy routinely prayed on the playing field after games. As time passed, players on the team began to join him, and eventually, most of his team engaged in prayer after games and in the locker room. This practice was ultimately noticed, and the Principal was informed. From there, the district superintendent essentially told Kennedy to refrain from motivational speeches consisting of prayer and to dissociate himself from any prayers the students may engage in, preventing the impression of endorsement as a district employee. He complied yet continued to silently pray by himself on the field, just not directly after the game concluded; others still decided to join him.

The District's concern shifted to acknowledging that he is a government employee present on duty, and to viewers, it may seem he is publicly endorsing a specific religion. They requested that he pray in a private area after games. Kennedy continued to pray on the field and was then placed on administrative leave for “public and demonstrative religious conduct while
still on duty as an assistant coach” (Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.). He then sued, claiming the District was violating his First Amendment rights.
The most important distinction to establish in this case is whether or not Coach Kennedy was engaging in a private religious prayer. The court ruled that the District violated Kennedy’s free exercise and free speech rights. It was also concluded that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply because the government should not infringe upon private religious expression. I disagree with this ruling entirely. To define Kennedy’s prayer in the locker room, or center field, as a heavily populated game ends, to be private prayer is irrational. As a coach, he prayed in a public space on duty where others could perceive him.

Kennedy's prayer with students on the field and in the locker room infringed upon protecting those who may not identify with his religious beliefs but were subject to the team's prayer. Kennedy clarified that he has “never told any student that it was important they
participate in any religious activity” (Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.). Though he did not enforce participation, there are social pressures that players who may not be religious or associate with a differing religion may have felt. I imagine it's not comforting when your football team joins your coach in prayer for a religion separate from your own and choosing to sustain the peer pressure to pray together rather than being the odd one out and possibly judged. When coach Joseph Kennedy began to publicly lead prayer amongst players as a government employee on duty, he unintentionally accepted the risk of imposing on the freedoms of others. This situation is comparable to the Engel v. Vitale case, which was deemed to violate The Establishment Clause In 1962. In this Supreme Court Case, a New York State law required public schools to begin their day with a prayer. Teachers guided the prayer, and students were not forced to participate. A student's parent sued, claiming this violated The Establishment Clause,
and the Supreme Court agreed that the government was endorsing religion upon students.

It feels as if the views of the Supreme Court majority failed to focus on how the individual freedoms and beliefs of others were affected by the coach endorsing his religion, among others on the field. Instead, the court described his prayer as private, when in so many ways it wasn't, along with labeling the District’s concerns with censorship and suppression. This decision can give the narrative that the court leans into the religious beliefs debated. In contrast, if the coach followed a minority religion in America, such as Judaism or the Islamic faith, and prayed on the field, many would argue that the ruling would be different.

The line separating church and state has been a continuous debate since the formation of the idea, but the true meaning becomes more important as our country ages. We must collectively acknowledge that the United States is in the absence of an official religion, and that is a beautiful thing. Balance comes in understanding that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we want as long as others' rights aren't affected. This belief system is what must be preserved in the court.

Works Cited
Supreme Court of the United States. Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Supreme Court of the United States. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,
597 U. S. (2022