Football Coach on Paid Leave for Praying on the Field

[Ketzal]

Not really sure if this deserves to be hear or in the Ranting Board. If it's supposed to be in the latter, could a mod please move this?

Anyway, I made this topic because of this story that I've been hearing on the news at my work for a few days now. I thought it was an interesting story and would make for some good discussion.

The gist of it is that an assistant football coach at a Seattle high school has had this habit of praying on the field after each game. According to the news site, this was something that he did in private, and eventually the players started joining him in prayer. He was warned by the school not to keep praying, and when he did so at the behest of a religious freedom committee, he was put on paid leave until he agreed to not continue with the behavior.

I'd like to start with my opinion, but I don't want to intimidate anyone who doesn't share my views, so I want to see what some of you guys think. Was the school in the right to do this? Is it the coach that's violating the First Amendment rights of others like the school is arguing, or is it the other way around?

Please keep it civil.

[Chris]

I think the fact that he's an assistant football coach for a High School (i.e. a government-funded institution) and this was during hours, along with the fact that other students started joining in, puts some bearing on what is or isn't allowed. In a sense, it'd be a like a teacher or teacher's assistant that said a prayer every day between classes, and other students followed along. How would it feel for students/players who weren't of that same faith, or weren't religious? It'd be very easy for such students to become ostrasized, to become targets for bullies, or it'd encourage them to fake being part of that religion. None of those outcomes are appropriate.

Put another way, how would people complaining about this feel if the assistant coach instead had a pre- or post-game chant of "Allah ahkbar!" ("God is great!") that other students started following along with? How would non-Muslims feel in that environment? Or if he instead had a habit of talking about how God wasn't responsible, since he doesn't exist, that other students sat in on?

According to the news site, this was something that he did in private

I must have a different definition of "private". In your own home before leaving for or after coming back from the game would be private. On the field of a public school, during hours in full view of everyone, isn't what I call private.

[Myperson54]

As with most arguments about rights and freedoms, this one seems to revolve around misapplication of the amendments (whichever one this is).

On one hand, I can understand the school board's concern. Faith is a very personal thing, and in North America, it tends to be seen as a thing that's best kept out of administration, including schools. The fear is one about coercion.

On the other hand, the players have made it abundantly clear that their coach never forced his beliefs upon them, but that they joined in of their own volition. The fact that this is the case means the law the school board follows is not serving its true purpose here. It's not preventing coercion, it's preventing one guy from practicing his faith in a normal manner.

While the letter of the law is written as a kind of utilitarian catch-all fairness, I'm of the mind that this treatment of rights & freedoms isn't actually helpful. It can preemptively solve a lot of problems, but it can also cause problems like this as well, and interpreting the law by its letter rather than its spirit is simply unhelpful.

On the note of what is "private" or "public": Honestly I don't think it matters a lick in most circumstances. In my eyes, the public nature of the act is made completely irrelevant by the intent of the law.

[Chris]

On the other hand, the players have made it abundantly clear that their coach never forced his beliefs upon them, but that they joined in of their own volition.

All of them? Can you say for sure none of the students are being coerced into joining because of their friends and/or classmates? That's the problem with issues like this, you can't know it's happening until well after problems have arisen. You're either forcing someone to follow a faith they don't follow, or you're forcing people to out themselves as being non-religious or being of a different faith when they're more than happy to keep it to themselves, simply because they don't follow along. This has been shown to create problems with bullying and ostrasizing for students (and in some cases, other faculty members). Just look at all the hooplah that happens when a student doesn't want to follow along with the Pledge of Allegience, because they don't want to declare the US as being Under God. They get picked on by other students and their own teachers, and some schools will be more than happy to let such kids be bullied into following along than to stop it.

While the letter of the law is written as a kind of utilitarian catch-all fairness, I'm of the mind that this treatment of rights & freedoms isn't actually helpful. It can preemptively solve a lot of problems, but it can also cause problems like this as well, and interpreting the law by its letter rather than its spirit is simply unhelpful.

Out of curiousity, how is this a problem? The guy isn't being prevented from praying, he's just being told to not do it while on-duty as a government employee. He can do it before or after work. Conversely, letting him do it is a problem, with quantifiable effects as shown time and again.

[Ketzal]

Out of curiousity, how is this a problem? The guy isn't being prevented from praying, he's just being told to not do it while on-duty as a government employee. He can do it before or after work. Conversely, letting him do it is a problem, with quantifiable effects as shown time and again.

At the same time, he's technically not being accommodated for his religious beliefs. I don't know the statutes to the letter, but my understanding is that the First Amendment allows the practice of religious freedom. Yes, there's also separation of church and state, but again, this guy was technically praying in private. He wasn't calling anyone over, he wasn't forming a huddle, he just knelt down and prayed on the field after the game was done.

I can understand that this potentially alienates people who aren't Christian, but it's trading one evil for another by alienating him for his religious beliefs.

[Bellhead]

The nerve of some people...

I agree that coercion can be a problem in situations regarding religion in the workplace, I do not think that applies here. Based on that link, it appeared to me that he was practicing his own faith; without interfering with those not participating, without inciting violence and without forcing others to join. Those are generally my three criteria for disliking a religious person for practicing.

But, as in a case like this, if you're not bothering anyone, forcing (or otherwise coercing) people to join, or encouraging uncivil/illegal acts, then by all means: Go right ahead. He was not stopping any task from being completed. He didn't make the players participate, they did so on their own.

It looked more to my like the school was encroaching upon his right to Freedom of Religion, first ammendmant. The others joind in, and this was very clearly stated, because they wanted to, and the parents saw no problem with it.

If you disagree, think: Each president, as they are sworn in, must swear on some sort of religious text, whether they practice or not. When in court, each party must swear on a bible to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help [them] god" whether they are religious or not.


Now I don't play sports. It's not my thing. But I do understand the urge to participate when several others (including, say, a coach) are invloved. I can say without the shadow of a doubt that I am not religious, yet I have still sat in prayer, gone to church, and been to temple. With each, I got the sense the idea was not to convert, but more to bring people closer. My grandmother believes in a god, and while it may be awkward when she talks about it, I wouldn't hold it against her. I do not see how this coach is all that different.

In short:
So he wants to give thanks, and his team wants to join him. Who cares?

While the letter of the law is written as a kind of utilitarian catch-all fairness, I'm of the mind that this treatment of rights & freedoms isn't actually helpful. It can preemptively solve a lot of problems, but it can also cause problems like this as well, and interpreting the law by its letter rather than its spirit is simply unhelpful.

Out of curiousity, how is this a problem? The guy isn't being prevented from praying, he's just being told to not do it while on-duty as a government employee. He can do it before or after work. Conversely, letting him do it is a problem, with quantifiable effects as shown time and again.

If I interpret the law to the letter, I would be dead. LONG dead. To quote Keith, "The laws were written to help us govern ourselves, but somewhere along the line, it's been twisted into scripture." Also, how is he a government employee after the game has ended and the players have left?

You said that people have been bullied for not participating in (for example) the Pledge of Allegience. Isn't that a little.. counterpoint to your idea here? Bullied for not conforming to religion, versus participating in an event which would likely only bring the team closer together? If he was thanking, say, the cosmos for the situation instead of a diety, would you have the same stance?

[Myperson54]

I'm somewhat surprised that I'm not the sole voice on my side of the argument. Seems like discussions about faith on this board tend to end up with me on one side and a sea of users on the other.

On the other hand, the players have made it abundantly clear that their coach never forced his beliefs upon them, but that they joined in of their own volition.

All of them? Can you say for sure none of the students are being coerced into joining because of their friends and/or classmates? That's the problem with issues like this, you can't know it's happening until well after problems have arisen.

I agree, except for the fact that nobody but the district has complained so far. I suppose it's entirely possible that for the entire year, nobody on the team complained about it even though they didn't like it. It's also entirely possible that nobody complained because nobody thought it was a bad thing.

If someone on the team had a problem with the coach's actions and they didn't speak up about it all year, that's not the coach's problem, it's the student's. They're responsible for taking action on their feelings. It would be like lashing out at someone for poking you over and over, without first asking them to stop nicely. In this case, any student with a problem would have the district at their backs as well.

The article also didn't specify whether the entire team joined him; they just said that some of the players did. I'm sure there were some who stayed back and didn't join in.

You're either forcing someone to follow a faith they don't follow, or you're forcing people to out themselves as being non-religious or being of a different faith when they're more than happy to keep it to themselves, simply because they don't follow along.

That right there, good sir, is a false dichotomy. I have some friends who are rather... dogmatic atheists. Fine people most of the time, but they can be very forceful about their religious opinions. However, I know for a fact that I've had them over for dinner and during grace, my friend will bow his head and close his eyes. I know he's not praying - the idea is ludicrous to him, trust me. He is in no way him "following" my faith; He's just being polite.

This has been shown to create problems with bullying and ostrasizing for students (and in some cases, other faculty members). Just look at all the hooplah that happens when a student doesn't want to follow along with the Pledge of Allegience, because they don't want to declare the US as being Under God. They get picked on by other students and their own teachers, and some schools will be more than happy to let such kids be bullied into following along than to stop it.

I can't really speak to this, but I suppose you have a point here. I'm from Canada, and here (or at least in Southern Ontario) there isn't nearly as much ceremony in public schools about a pledge of allegiance. We mainly sing the national anthem. Mind you, the anthem does have numerous Christian references, especially in the original French. Thing is, if nobody sings along, I've observed that nobody really cares. I don't think we really have the same culture surrounding patriotism in that sense.

I agree for sure that this behaviour is a problem. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's really relevant to this. I get the sense that when the Pledge is spoken, you follow along and it's mandatory. The article was pretty clear that nobody was being forced into joining him, and they made it out to be a personal thing anyhow. I don't really see a problem or a need for a problem here.

While the letter of the law is written as a kind of utilitarian catch-all fairness, I'm of the mind that this treatment of rights & freedoms isn't actually helpful. It can preemptively solve a lot of problems, but it can also cause problems like this as well, and interpreting the law by its letter rather than its spirit is simply unhelpful.

Out of curiousity, how is this a problem? The guy isn't being prevented from praying, he's just being told to not do it while on-duty as a government employee. He can do it before or after work. Conversely, letting him do it is a problem, with quantifiable effects as shown time and again.

It's a problem because he is in fact being prevented from praying in the manner he likes, which is not a way that's hurting anyone. I agree that you should restrict personal freedoms for the benefit of common freedoms, but this isn't a case where I think that's necessary.

quantifiable

See the reply two quotes above. Also:

[Chris]

I agree, except for the fact that nobody but the district has complained so far.

But again, who would complain? Certainly not the person leading the prayer, or the people who want to follow along. The people who don't want to follow along are then presented with the risk being ostrasized or bullied in an environment they're legally required to go to (short of extreme options like home schooling, which not everyone can afford). In some cases, this could even reflect back into their personal life, if the student isn't out to their parents or friends as being not of that faith. Most people wouldn't want to take that risk, and so just stay quiet and follow along. That's coersion.

If someone on the team had a problem with the coach's actions and they didn't speak up about it all year, that's not the coach's problem, it's the student's.

Blame the victim, hm? The students didn't put themselves at risk to report something that they were being coerced into, so it's their fault for allowing it to continue and not the assistant for starting it.

The article also didn't specify whether the entire team joined him; they just said that some of the players did. I'm sure there were some who stayed back and didn't join in.

Does it matter if it's only some of the students follow along if it's still creating problems for others?

You're either forcing someone to follow a faith they don't follow, or you're forcing people to out themselves as being non-religious or being of a different faith when they're more than happy to keep it to themselves, simply because they don't follow along.

That right there, good sir, is a false dichotomy. I have some friends who are rather... dogmatic atheists. Fine people most of the time, but they can be very forceful about their religious opinions. However, I know for a fact that I've had them over for dinner and during grace, my friend will bow his head and close his eyes. I know he's not praying - the idea is ludicrous to him, trust me. He is in no way him "following" my faith; He's just being polite.

Bad analogy. You can set the expectation for acceptable behavior in your house and your friends are free to not come over if they don't agree. They can even stop interacting with you over it, if they so choose. Here, however, we're talking about a school function for a public school controlled by the government, not a private building controlled by a private individual. People are compelled, by law, to attend school where not everyone they interact with are friends, and they may want to take part in certain school activities. Why is this coach assistant allowed to set the standard behavior for religious practice that other people are expected to politely follow?

I can just imagine the uproar if, instead of a judeo-christian prayer, this coach's assistant instead went on to talk about the glory of Allah, or to go on to talk about how the team's skill is due to their own capabilities and not some nonexistant being like God, or about how Satan was responsible for their fortune. I bet support for this guy doing what he does when he does would drop significantly. But because it's for the dominant religion, it's okay, and speaking against it is just causing trouble.

I agree for sure that this behaviour is a problem. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's really relevant to this. I get the sense that when the Pledge is spoken, you follow along and it's mandatory.

The pledge is not mandatory. Certain school districts would like it to be, because the only people who wouldn't want to say it are godless heathens who hate America.

It's a problem because he is in fact being prevented from praying in the manner he likes, which is not a way that's hurting anyone.

And there's the point of contention. I disagree that it's not hurting anyone.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/middle- ... 00397.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140600621 ... in-schools

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... od/279095/

Despite not being compelled, students do get bullied and ostrasized when they don't follow along. They're classified as "troublemakers" who "disrupt the classroom" for nothing more than sitting down and remaining silent while others pledge to a flag and declare the US to be under God. And even trying to anonymously report a problem, people will still try to find out who reported it and be subject to bullying and harrassment when found out.

Also, how is he a government employee after the game has ended and the players have left?

According to the article, he "cannot resume his job until he agrees not to pray while on duty as a coach". And the fact that other players were joining in means the players hadn't left. It could be a bit different if he was off-the-clock and other people weren't there (maybe; I'd still question if public school grounds was an appropriate place for a supposed "private" prayer), but that's not the case here.

If you disagree, think: Each president, as they are sworn in, must swear on some sort of religious text, whether they practice or not.

Funny you bring that up. How likely do you think it would be for a president to get sworn in today if they profess to be of a non-Judeo-Christian faith, or even an Atheist? Could it be that they do this because speaking against it is one sure-fire way to kill their candidacy, even though it's technically illegal for a president's religion (or lack thereof) to factor into their eligibility?

At the same time, he's technically not being accommodated for his religious beliefs.

Neither was Kim Davis. And just like Kim Davis, allowing him to continue can have negative effects on others who don't want to follow his religion.

[Ketzal]

Neither was Kim Davis. And just like Kim Davis, allowing him to continue can have negative effects on others who don't want to follow his religion.

That's...not really comparable, honestly. That woman was refusing to do her job as assigned to her by the state and not allowing people of a different mindset to have the same liberties. This man isn't refusing to do his job, he's just wanting to do it while having the opportunity to pray at the games that he participates in.

I do understand where you're coming from though; there are a lot of people that take aggressive stances towards people who don't conform to a community-wide practice, and in all honesty I can't say whether any kids were being coerced or not.

but even with all that said, and even with the examples you've given, those are all situations where people have taken it upon themselves to force their beliefs unto others. This man has made no attempt with the actions he makes on the field. Could there be indirect consequence? Maybe, but it doesn't seem right that a man should be stopped from stepping aside and affirming his beliefs to no one but himself. That's where I think they get the "private" part, by the way: that his praying was not initially to anyone, and that the praying session that has grown out of it has merely been a product of the players joining in on it.

Blame the victim, hm? The students didn't put themselves at risk to report something that they were being coerced into, so it's their fault for allowing it to continue and not the assistant for starting it.

What did he start though? He started praying to himself, that's all. If there's anyone who "started" anything, it was the students who decided to join him in prayer, but even then that's just them wanting to either show support for the coach and/or show support for his faith.

There is a conflict that can arise from these kinds of situations, I'll admit that, but the conflict itself comes from overt expression of one's beliefs to the point of stifling others' views. I don't think that the man should be forced to stop praying, he's just showing appreciation to the God that he believes in at no expense to anyone else's views. Any coercion or ostracization that has come from this is a result of more and more spotlight being put on this man's behavior, not the man's behavior himself.

[Chris]

That's...not really comparable, honestly. That woman was refusing to do her job as assigned to her by the state and not allowing people of a different mindset to have the same liberties. This man isn't refusing to do his job, he's just wanting to do it while having the opportunity to pray at the games that he participates in.

The point is, "being accommodated for his religious beliefs" is not an excuse to let people flaunt their religion anywhere at any time. Especially when it can create an unsafe environment for people that don't want to follow along. There are limits, particularly when it comes to the government.

What did he start though? He started praying to himself, that's all. If there's anyone who "started" anything, it was the students who decided to join him in prayer

And, upon seeing other students join in, he should've realized it could be a problem and stopped. But he continued, despite knowing it was no longer just himself in "private". The district had to intervene because they had serious concerns that an on-the-clock employee leading prayers during school events could be seen as the school endorsing that religion (yes, it's after the game, but the event isn't over once the game is over; there's post-game stuff that goes on that's still part of the event as it winds down), and thus be infringing on the other students' religious freedoms.

That he tries to call his prayers "private" I think shows how shakey his position is. His house is private, an open football field on public school property in which anyone can join in is not.

There is a conflict that can arise from these kinds of situations, I'll admit that, but the conflict itself comes from overt expression of one's beliefs to the point of stifling others' views.

Which is why he's being told to stop. It's not about stifling his religion, it's about preventing his religion from stifling others'.

Like I said, I wager the majority of people supporting the guy (not all, but most) do so because it matches close enough to their religion. They feel oppressed by him being told to stop, without realizing the oppression they're causing for others by allowing him to continue (or they do realize and want to do it anyway). If he was expressing any other religion that's different enough from the "norm", those same people would be right there to see him stifled, unironically claiming religious freedom.

I don't think that the man should be forced to stop praying, he's just showing appreciation to the God that he believes in at no expense to anyone else's views.

He's not being forced to stop praying altogether. He's free to pray at home before the game, and/or after he clocks out and leaves. He is, however, being told to stop "while on duty as a coach". That's a key difference. There's a time and place for everything, and religious prayers on school grounds during school events, particularly lead by school officials, is not appropriate, IMO.

Any coercion or ostracization that has come from this is a result of more and more spotlight being put on this man's behavior, not the man's behavior himself.

It not having been such a public spectacle would actually do quite a bit to make people feel more coerced into it. If others aren't treating something as a big deal, people in that position would be less likely to speak up about it because they don't want to make a big deal out of it.

[Bellhead]

Any coercion or ostracization that has come from this is a result of more and more spotlight being put on this man's behavior, not the man's behavior himself.

It not having been such a public spectacle would actually do quite a bit to make people feel more coerced into it. If others aren't treating something as a big deal, people in that position would be less likely to speak up about it because they don't want to make a big deal out of it.

And again the Pledge comes up. Saying the pledge affirms belief in god, and not saying it makes one subject to bullying. And, based on the linked articles, this bullying still occurs around the country. I for one was commanded by a teacher to stand for the Pledge several times in gradeschool, I just never knew it was my right not to stand if I had so chosen.

So you have a quip about the 50 yard line being "not private". Okay, I can kinda see that. So, what if he was taking a knee and praying in the locker room? The entire team would be there, whether they want to be or not, yet that would definately be considered "private".
There's not a lot of people who would be walking through the center of the field after the game, anyway. This way, he can do his thing, and those who wish to join in can do so with their own initiative, else leave.

Some people thank "the universe" for their fortunes. Some teams will have a picture or an object that they will break a huddle on. How is this any different? Un-forced established religious belief, versus un-established forced religious belief? I would honestly like to know the difference, and I do honestly want an answer to this: If he were praying to an object instead of a diety, would you all hold the same stance?

[Chris]

And again the Pledge comes up. Saying the pledge affirms belief in god, and not saying it makes one subject to bullying. And, based on the linked articles, this bullying still occurs around the country. I for one was commanded by a teacher to stand for the Pledge several times in gradeschool, I just never knew it was my right not to stand if I had so chosen.

Exactly. These things were so prominant and normal, that it was seen as the proper thing you must do even when it wasn't. You just accepted what they said as the truth, and they had no intention of telling you otherwise.

But even when you have those few "trouble makers" assert their rights of not following that religion, they get bullied. So don't you think that sends a message to other people who also don't follow that religion, to just go along with it to avoid causing problems? Just because some students will "disrupt the class", for not following that religion, doesn't mean the other minorities will also when pushed.

The entire team would be there, whether they want to be or not, yet that would definately be considered "private".

"Private" as in "a place he owns that other people aren't allowed without his permission". He doesn't own the locker room, there are other people there, and he doesn't control who's allowed in and out. And regardless of where he is, he's also on the clock as an assistant coach, in a legal station of authority over those students. That alone is enough to cause issues for young, impressionable minds.

There's not a lot of people who would be walking through the center of the field after the game, anyway. This way, he can do his thing, and those who wish to join in can do so with their own initiative, else leave.

But of course, a real god-fearing American wouldn't just leave without joining in, right? You're not some godless heathen who's going to leave early, are you? You know, I don't think I saw Johnny here after the last game. Someone's due for a swirly tomorrow, it seems.

Some people thank "the universe" for their fortunes. Some teams will have a picture or an object that they will break a huddle on. How is this any different?

Those don't advertise a set of beliefs. "The universe" isn't a conscious entity. Thanking it is like thanking "goodness"... it's an expression of relief, not an expression of belief. It's aesthetics, like a favorite shirt or turn of phrase, not an assertion of a dogmatic belief structure.

If he were praying to an object instead of a diety, would you all hold the same stance?

If that object was held in religious esteem, yes. If he believes the object to have some supernatural power and lets the students follow along with a prayer to that object, it would be the same problem. It's a dogmatic belief that serves to alienate between those who do believe in the object, and those that don't. Even if that's not the intention, history and human nature has shown that stuff like that will.

[Myperson54]

It's a dogmatic belief that serves to alienate between those who do believe in the object, and those that don't. Even if that's not the intention, history and human nature has shown that stuff like that will.

And the fact that you've taken this position, the fact that this is the underlying idea behind your arguments, is why I'm not going to continue on this argument.

[Bellhead]

Some people thank "the universe" for their fortunes. Some teams will have a picture or an object that they will break a huddle on. How is this any different?

Those don't advertise a set of beliefs. "The universe" isn't a conscious entity. Thanking it is like thanking "goodness"... it's an expression of relief, not an expression of belief. It's aesthetics, like a favorite shirt or turn of phrase, not an assertion of a dogmatic belief structure.

I'll guess by this that you don't have experience with this matter. If you see a person thank the universe, they thank it as one would thank existence. Yeah, it's there, you can't say it isn't. But it's like those trees in JC's Avatar: Whether it's considered a religion or not, it's a real thing; a real, quantifiable consciousness which cannot be denied. If you see somebody thanking the universe, they may very well have a similar belief, that the universe in itself is a conscious entity, with a plan for everyone. It'd be like believing in the president to exist, when you're in a small western town with a crooked sheriff. Would that be considered a religion if nobody else believed he was there?

If he were praying to an object instead of a diety, would you all hold the same stance?

If that object was held in religious esteem, yes. If he believes the object to have some supernatural power and lets the students follow along with a prayer to that object, it would be the same problem. It's a dogmatic belief that serves to alienate between those who do believe in the object, and those that don't. Even if that's not the intention, history and human nature has shown that stuff like that will.

So effectively 'yes'. You're pretty far to one side, aren't you?

By that statement, correct me if I'm wrong, but you would also consider most traditions to be religious, such as, oh, taking your hat off to the flag, or kneeling to a crown, or holding some emotional connection to a baseball cap with your high school's sports logo on it? Effectively, and please call me out if I am wrong, but any situation where a person(s) regard(s) an object(s) with an intense sentimental value, that person is religious, and should not be allowed to show said connection in public. Something's just not making sense here.

[ReBob]

As someone with no connection to any religious belief, I have a problem with the religious freedom of others being repressed by those who disagree with them. I'm unable to see how such personal offense can be taken over an act such as praying, where the main action is undertaken internally. I just don't see it. The times that it does lead into community shunning and shaming is a problem with tolerance, not with expression of religion. Is limiting ones ability to express their religious values, regardless of their job or status, really the solution? I don't think it is.

I don't agree with the action of making an assumption about a situation, such as presuming that coercion is taking place and assuming the worst possible outcome, because that causes problems for everyone. It leads to small issues like this becoming national news and taking the decision making out of the community. It leads to actions like suspending or expelling students because they make a gun with their hand and yell 'bang' or bring plastic army men to school. It's an extremist approach to a problem that, in most cases, probably isn't a problem in the first place. I don't see how this will do anything but cause resentment in the end and cause the problem to either stay a problem or become worse.

Strawman argument, personal anecdote, whatever it is, I ran into no issues when I decided to stop standing for the pledge in high school. I was the only person who didn't at first, and eventually one or two others joined me. I didn't do it out of my lack of faith, and when asked by my teacher I explained as much. I didn't get bullied for it or coerced into changing, though I will admit it may be due to the teacher being a generally cool and understanding person. The fact that at the time I interacted with nobody leads me to believe that I should have been bullied over it, but I wasn't. There were instances of bullying, but never over that.