The Wrightwing

Recently, Marcus Borden, a high school football coach for East Brunswick, NJ, resigned after being told he could no longer make ritual prayer a standard part of the teams activities.

While the manner of his resignation is such that you can admire his integrity for doing so, it raises a question.

Why is the line between free exercise of religion and coerced exercise of religion so hard to see, for so many people?

Many are able to see this, as seen in many stories and editorial around the state. Here is an example.

Others seem not to be able to see this, or refuse to admit it exists. Examples Here.

Others claim he was fired for prayer, trying to incite self righteous outrage in religious conservatives.

There are many examples of all of the above, from various perspectives, if you care to search for them.

We can see the outrage from some, claiming their right to pray is being oppressed. It isn’t. What is being stopped is the IMPOSITION of prayer on others, without their consent.

Remember: The right to do anything does not include the authority to force others to go along with you.

The right to speak does not include the authority to force others to obey you, or pay for your paper, It does not include the right to tell deliberate lies without consequence. or force people to listen to you.
The right to peaceably assemble does not include the authority to force others to march with you, or get out of your way, or riot.
The right to keep and bear arms does not include the authority to force everyone to buy a gun, or the authority to shoot people that do not agree with you.

The right of free exercise of religion does not include the authority to tell others when to pray, how to pray or what to pray. It most certainly does not include the authority to tell anyone that they must pray at all.

Now, don’t get me wrong, his many awards attest to his skills and dedication as a coach. (Examples Here and here).

But does being a good coach, even an excellent coach, mean that he understands the difference between consent and coercion? Does it mean he even questioned or considered these things?

Apparently, no. He is not alone: Let us pray? Coaches unsure of boundary between prayer and team camaraderie

Now some say he was just continuing a tradition he inherited:
Grid coach had inherited prayer custom.

But there are many things we have inherited from our past that we have discarded.

In our journey to perfect and improve upon the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment, from which the Founders of our nation gathered much of the wisdom enshrined in their writings and documents, including The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have made compromises with ideals in order to continue that journey, to later refute those compromises.

We originally granted the right to vote only to property owning males, almost all of them white.
We originally allowed only males to hold property in their own names, women could do so only under the authority of male family members or husbands.
We originally allowed slavery to exist, counting them as only three fifths a human, and gave only grudging acceptance to former slaves as freedmen.

We have discarded these conventions and more, as we have grown in our understanding of the concepts of freedom and liberty.

Allowing women and non-propertied males the right to vote did not affect the rights of those that already held the franchise.
Allowing women the right to hold property did nothing to the rights of males, except, perhaps, to diminish their power over women. A good thing, I think.
And anyone that thinks ending slavery, at the cost of over 600,000 lives, was in any way a bad thing,,, well, I have no words for them.

Enforcing the line between religious coercion and religious freedom falls within that same ideal.

When anyone that has the authority of the state, uses a state function for religious activity of any kind, no matter how mundane or inconsequential it may seem, they have stepped over the line that is drawn by the First Amendment, that separates freedom from tyranny. They have stepped over the same line the Second Amendment defines, when supporters of gun registration and the various National Firearms Acts enact their various schemes.

So another question: Does he want to be a coach or a cleric?

Coach Borden has resigned. Does he believe that religious observance is so much a part of coaching that one can not be a coach without also being a cleric? If so, why?
So far as I am aware, religious observances are not a part of the training offered at the U.S. Olympic Training Center, where athletes that are among the worlds elite train and compete. While each athlete and coach there is perfectly free to pray and make religious observances, they may not do so if it interferes with the business of the Center, or with others training there. You will often see an athlete or coach make a small genuflection or other gesture before attempting an event, but you will not see group prayer led by an official.

This is as it should be. Everyone is free to observe, while being considerate of others. Everyone is free to ignore, without insulting others.

If he can not separate coaching from religion, perhaps he should be coaching for one of the numerous religious high schools in the state, where such activity is part and parcel of the curriculum. Or even seek ordination somewhere.

It is truly a pity that he can not separate his coaching duties from religion. He clearly is loved and respected by his players, both current and former. For him to abandon them for this seems harsh.

I hope he reconsiders and realizes that respecting others rights is not a denial of his own. Beyond law, it is just common courtesy.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 15th, 2005 at 11:58 pm and is filed under Liberty, Religion, WarOnSeparation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.