Supreme Court rules prayer led by coach is A-OK (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

Supreme Court rules for former coach in public school prayer case

Former coach Joseph Kennedy argued that the Bremerton School District in Washington state violated his religious freedom by telling him he couldn’t pray on the field after games.

www.nbcnews.com

Surprised this one wasn’t posted yet; in another precedent-ignoring decision, the SC ruled 6-3 that prayer led by coach after football games is not an establishment or endorsement of religion.

 

[Lapaz]

Sure there are people out there like that. There are also people that want to live in a communist country and want all religion to be force underground. Do you recognize that?

Extremely few people want to live in a communist country, but many want to live in a European style democracy. It’s dense that many Republicans can’t understand the difference. Also, few want to push religion underground. I’m an atheist, yet I appreciate that religion CAN be a force for good, but all too often it’s used as a cudgel.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

................................ I say all that to say that it really tends to be only the left that has issue with religion (any religion). The real question is why.

It has nothing to do with having issues with religion. It's about the creation of the modern state. It's about the difference between public and private.

 

[SystemShock]

Got it. So how is freedom of religion, as mentioned in this opinion a religious law?

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/muslims-jews-supreme-court-side-090033436.html

Howard Slugh, Gregory Dolin and Ismail Royer
Mon, June 27, 2022 at 9:24 AM·5 min read


Fouad Zaban is head coach of the Fordson High School football team in Dearborn, Michigan. He's a Muslim, like most of his team. If a player offered him a drink of water during Ramadan, the coach would have to decline. If the student asked why, he would explain that he is fasting because of his faith.
Would this innocent interaction violate the Constitution? Maybe, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is correct. (The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vindicated the right of religious Americans to participate in public life while maintaining their faith.)
According to the 9th Circuit ruling, any public display of religion by a public school employee within the view of his students at or near school functions is constitutionally suspect. We, as representatives of Muslim and Jewish organizations, hope the Supreme Court rejects the 9th Circuit's restrictive view and vindicates the right of religious Americans to participate in public life while maintaining their faith.

That opening is very weak.
The last sentence in the quoted text, overly dramatic.

Just as with the 2nd, a very important part of the 1st Amendment is ignored, the part where the 1st Amendment gives citizens freedom FROM religion.

If coach wants to pray before, during, or after a game, that's his right. Calling his players to prayer as a figure of authority in a State venue, that's another story.

 

[bdb13]

It has nothing to do with having issues with religion. It's about the creation of the modern state. It's about the difference between public and private.

Exactly.

Problem is that when one sees this stuff through the skewed lens of strong belief in their religion that view of things tends to give a view where things sit about 180° from where they actually are (as evidenced by the view being pushed that "separation of church and state" was ONLY meant to keep government out of religion; that it's not a wall, but a one way door).

 

[bdb13]

Just saw this (Boebert's statement on separation of church and state is pretty much along the lines of what farb said earlier, so that's already circulating if you weren't already aware):

Andrew Seidel, vice president of strategic communications at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said that both the Supreme Court decision on prayer and Boebert’s comments were rooted in Christian nationalism.

“It ignored the religious freedom of everybody except the coach,” Seidel said. “And that is not religious freedom. That is religious favoritism. That’s what Christian nationalism seeks. That’s what Lauren Boebert was preaching.”

Boebert, court decisions ignite debate over church and state

Rep. Lauren Boebert’s recent comments calling the separation of church and state “junk” have drawn both criticism and worry that the influence of conservative Christians — both in public office and…

thehill.com

 

[MT15]

I assume you have proof of this being done?

It’s happening in Florida. Google it.

 

[MT15]

Just saw this (Boebert's statement on separation of church and state is pretty much along the lines of what farb said earlier, so that's already circulating if you weren't already aware):

Boebert, court decisions ignite debate over church and state

Rep. Lauren Boebert’s recent comments calling the separation of church and state “junk” have drawn both criticism and worry that the influence of conservative Christians — both in public office and…

thehill.com

It (the Gorsuch opinion) not only ignored the religious freedom of every other person on the team except the coach, it misrepresented what he was actually doing in a significant way. This SC is corrupt, they deserve every bit of their low approval rating.

 

[bird]

Just saw this (Boebert's statement on separation of church and state is pretty much along the lines of what farb said earlier, so that's already circulating if you weren't already aware):

Boebert, court decisions ignite debate over church and state

Rep. Lauren Boebert’s recent comments calling the separation of church and state “junk” have drawn both criticism and worry that the influence of conservative Christians — both in public office and…

thehill.com

Boebert can barely dress herself and walk upright.

 

[MT15]

It’s like a shark feeding frenzy. Anyone who thinks they will stop at Roe is seriously kidding themselves. From a Newsweek opinion:

 

[Incumbent]

It’s like a shark feeding frenzy. Anyone who thinks they will stop at Roe is seriously kidding themselves. From a Newsweek opinion:

I caught some commentary late yesterday making the point of how organized conservatives became around ideals that would give rise to the Federalist Society and remaking the judiciary, going back to Justice Lewis Powell.

I think this is where the Left has put itself at a severe disadvantage. Republicans have proven over and over that what goes on behind the scenes, messaging, targeted and relentless manipulation of the populace is so much more important. Trump was a terrible candidate by any previous measure but all of that diligently laid groundwork propelled him to icon status.

The marriage of elite-enriching industrialist free market devotion and christofascist conservatism has given rise to a dark and powerful force intent on destroying any opposition that stands in the way. We need to learn from the painful and obvious lessons that have arisen from the 2016 election and ready ourselves to fight back in a war we have remained ill-prepared to wage for far too long. No longer can we afford to fool ourselves into believing we can extend a hand to the opposition, mistaking them as our neighbors and friends across the aisle, who long ago quit seeing us in that way.

 

[bird]

I caught some commentary late yesterday making the point of how organized conservatives became around ideals that would give rise to the Federalist Society and remaking the judiciary, going back to Justice Lewis Powell.

I think this is where the Left has put itself at a severe disadvantage. Republicans have proven over and over that what goes on behind the scenes, messaging, targeted and relentless manipulation of the populace is so much more important. Trump was a terrible candidate by any previous measure but all of that diligently laid groundwork propelled him to icon status.

The marriage of elite-enriching industrialist free market devotion and christofascist conservatism has given rise to a dark and powerful force intent on destroying any opposition that stands in the way. We need to learn from the painful and obvious lessons that have arisen from the 2016 election and ready ourselves to fight back in a war we have remained ill-prepared to wage for far too long. No longer can we afford to fool ourselves into believing we can extend a hand to the opposition, mistaking them as our neighbors and friends across the aisle, who long ago quit seeing us in that way.

You will get absolutely no argument from me. This has become politics as blood sport. If we don’t play that way we will fail. The “when they go low, we go high” must end NOW.

 

[Farb]

It’s happening in Florida. Google it.

no it is not, not by law. I am sure there are emotional drama queens that post 'horror' stories on tick tock or whatever.

 

[Farb]

That opening is very weak.
The last sentence in the quoted text, overly dramatic.

Just as with the 2nd, a very important part of the 1st Amendment is ignored, the part where the 1st Amendment gives citizens freedom FROM religion.

If coach wants to pray before, during, or after a game, that's his right. Calling his players to prayer as a figure of authority in a State venue, that's another story.

Where is it in the 1st that is shows freedom FROM religion? It actually is that religion is free FROM the state. Have you read the letters where Jefferson states exactly what he meant by the phrase?

Again, he didn't force anyone to pray. They could leave. If they don't care enough about their moral fortitude to walk away, then why should anyone else care about their moral dilemma? They don't.

 

[Farb]

You're suggesting Jefferson spoke of a wall of separation that didn't separate things? lmao

separatedprotected the church FROM the state.

 

[Farb]

I did. I and others went into detail with you on that subject showing how the language could achieve the “don’t say gay” result. So you either didn’t pay attention back then, or you are Farbing and trying to pretend that whole discussion didn’t happen. Rinse. Repeat. Farb. As I said before, you are a caricature.

Yes, people showed me their opinion and I still think they are wrong. Got anything new, beside 'it might'? Otherwise, you are arguing your opinion and based on your past, I think we all know where that goes....caricature and all.

 

[bdb13]

Where is it in the 1st that is shows freedom FROM religion? It actually is that religion is free FROM the state. Have you read the letters where Jefferson states exactly what he meant by the phrase?

Again, he didn't force anyone to pray. They could leave. If they don't care enough about their moral fortitude to walk away, then why should anyone else care about their moral dilemma? They don't.

It's very principle Jefferson expresses in that letter to the Danbury baptists:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

He is explicitly saying there that the wording of the Constitution prevents religion from interfering with government and government from interfering with religion.

 

[MT15]

separatedprotected the church FROM the state.

Wrong!

 

[MT15]

no it is not, not by law. I am sure there are emotional drama queens that post 'horror' stories on tick tock or whatever.

It is happening in Florida, credibly reported from actual teachers. You know the wording of the law is intentionally vague and the cruelty is the point. You just choose to deny it.