Coda Borden decision leaves too many questions unanswered GREG BEAN If either the East Brunswick school district or longtime football coach Marcus Borden were hoping to get a clear opinion on the school prayer issue that has divided the community, they sure didn't get it from the federal appeals court that recently released a decision on the case. Gregory Bean is executive editor of Greater Media Newspapers. You can reach him at gbean@gmnews.com. I won't bother going back over the facts of the dispute, since that's been well covered in stories in GreaterMedia's newspaper the Sentinel and in previous columns. I did spend a good part of the morning last week reading the 70-page decision by a three-judge panel in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court ofAppeals in Philadelphia that overturned a previous ruling on the case made in U.S. District Court in 2006. The District Court had agreed with Borden, who claimed his FirstAmendment rights were violated when the school district forbade him from taking part in pregame prayers with the football team, as he had done for over two decades. The school district, represented by the national watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, appealed that decision to a higher court. Two years later, the appeals court overturned the District Court ruling, saying that in their opinion, Borden's rights had not been violated and in fact, Borden's participation violated federal laws about endorsing religion in school, among other things. The decision, however, is not a clear-cut win for the school district, or a clear-cut loss for Borden, and it raises almost as many questions as it answers. In short, the decision does not prevent other football or sports coaches across the nation from bowing a head or taking a knee during pre-game, student-led prayers. In fact, the panel said, that behavior could be seen as a sign of respect. The decision does, however, specifically prohibit Borden, and only Borden, from doing so because his long history, the judges opined, would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the coach was endorsing religion, which is unconstitutional. In other words, the judges said, we're not gonna make a broad ruling about pregame, student-led prayers in schools, but we're gonna prohibit this one guy in East Brunswick from taking any part in it. And if a student athlete initiates a pregame prayer while Borden is in the room, the judges had no advice on how he should react. Should he leave the room? Well, maybe not, the judges said, since that might indicate a "hostility to religion that no one would intend." Should he stare at the wall? Should he start doingmath sums in his head so he doesn't hear the prayer? The judges simply didn't provide any opinion or advice. The complete ambiguity of the decision shouldn't make anyone feel better about this situation. Throughout this mess, the school district has acted in the only way it could in order to prevent lawsuits from parents and students who felt their own rights had been violated by being coerced into religious observance during pre-game prayer. Borden and his attorney, Ronald J. Riccio, have framed their arguments as a simple defense of the coach's FirstAmendment rights, and by extension the rights of other coaches across the country. Riccio told The NewYork Times that he plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. He didn't tell our paper that, because he didn't return our calls. Borden seldom, if ever, returns our calls (which explains some of our trouble covering football in the community). In my opinion, however, the chances of the case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are slim. They have thousands of requests to hear cases every year, and they only hear about 100, each of them at their discretion. It's improbable they'll hear a case that three judges in federal appeals court agreed upon. - which will leave a wound in the East Brunswick community that will never be completely healed or resolved. I've vacillated over how I feel about this case since it began in 2005. For a while, I thought Borden was doing basically the right thing (although it killedme to defend him in print, since our relationship hasn't always been cordial). Then, I thought the school district was in the right. I certainly supported theirmotivation, since they had no choice. Now, I've got mixed emotions and don't know how I feel about it. I do know this: the whole thing makes me sad. Sad that this issue has divided my home community. Sad that it has put us in the national spotlight. Sad that itmight not be over yet. Mostly, I'm sad that reasonable people couldn't work this problem out before it went so far. That, of course, would have required that those involved were reasonable to begin with, and I don't think anyone has ever accused Marcus Borden of that. • • • I got a kick out of a recent story in The New York Times about political pollsters trying to figure out how people will vote based on the food they eat. People who prefer KFC to Popeyes might vote one way. People who prefer Lucky Charms over Fiber One might vote another. Once the campaigns identify groups of people who share certain traits, like preferring Poland Spring over tap water, they can customize their phone, e-mail or directmailmessages for that group. You wouldn't talk the same way to a person who likes Fuddruckers better than Red Lobster, after all. And forget those people eating lunch at Cheeburger Cheeburger. Nobody knows anything about them, or why they'll drive so far to get there. As I read the story, it amused me to note that I was currently eating a brown bag lunch that consisted of a Peter Pan peanut butter sandwich with Miracle Whip and crushed barbecued potato chips between two slices of Wonder Bread. I wonder what the pollsters would make of that. They'd probably call Homeland Security. • • • A story in Greater Media's newspaper the Independent last week had a frontpage story about the Holmdel Township Committee taking on subpoena power in an investigation of charges made by whistle blowing firefighters against the fire chief. This is the first time I remember a township committee becoming an investigative body and claiming subpoena power, and this situation bears watching. How far are they prepared to go if the people they subpoena just say no?