SCOTUS sides with prayers on the high school football field

[MillCreek]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-bremertons-praying-coach/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1xkFFJIY4NVVJS-zMPlXgcOZeDaKycfrSh6u2TNKYg-hl-dJIahhcVlSE#Echobox=1656339603


The Court ruled that the coach was wrongfully terminated after refusing to stop leading prayers and that this infringed his First Amendment rights to free speech.

[Lennyjoe]

Glad for him.  I see no issue with pray before, during or after, but I’m also a conservative…

[Hawkmoon]

AP article: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-coach-prayer-2981a8073ea82a1a688c367270c941aa

Actually, all the coach was asking for was to be allowed to pray by himself -- and to allow any students who wished to join him to be allowed to do so. The case wasn't about him "leading" prayers at all, although that's what the school tried to turn it into.

[WLJ]

Would they have said something if he was Muslim?
And what would have been the left's reaction?

[MillCreek]

And what will be the Right's reaction when a Muslim Imam, Jewish Rabbi, or Satanic practitioner does the same?  Hopefully they will welcome it as being in the best spirit of the First Amendment.

[WLJ]

And what will be the Right's reaction when a Muslim Imam, Jewish Rabbi, or Satanic practitioner does the same?  Hopefully they will welcome it as being in the best spirit of the First Amendment.

I personally wouldn't even blink. Well maybe I would at at the Satanic one for a moment. But I can only speak for myself. No shortage of aholes on the right as well.

But you can bet dollars to donuts some in the MSM would be out there defending the Satanic as freedom of religion while at the same time condemning the Christian and probably even the Jewish as a violation of the separation of church and state

[WLJ]

And right on cue

Charles C.W. Cooke has reminder for lib blue-check and anyone else who thinks SCOTUS just turned public schools into Christian theocracies
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/06/27/charles-c-w-cooke-has-reminder-for-lib-blue-check-and-anyone-else-who-thinks-scotus-just-turned-public-schools-into-christian-theocracies/

[cordex]

And what will be the Right's reaction when a Muslim Imam, Jewish Rabbi, or Satanic practitioner does the same?  Hopefully they will welcome it as being in the best spirit of the First Amendment.

You do know that "the Right" does not have some sort of Christian purity test to join up, don't you?  I personally know Muslims and Jews who consider themselves to be on the Right.  Atheists too, but I don't personally know any conservative Satanists.

As WLJ notes, there are jerks in any group, but I have a hard time seeing any sort of negative reaction by any significant conservative element against earnest, respectful prayer of any flavor on the sidelines of a sporting event.

[HankB]

You do know that "the Right" does not have some sort of Christian purity test to join up, don't you?  I personally know Muslims and Jews who consider themselves to be on the Right.  Atheists too, but I don't personally know any conservative Satanists.

As WLJ notes, there are jerks in any group, but I have a hard time seeing any sort of negative reaction by any significant conservative element against earnest, respectful prayer of any flavor on the sidelines of a sporting event.

There might be some objections by a few on the fringe, but National Socialists aren't right wing or conservatives in the American sense of the word.

How often do conservatives protest outside synagogues, Buddhist temples, or other places of non-Christian worship? It was lefties who took to attacking Jewish people in NYC a few years back. The last time I remember conservatives objecting to another religion's actions in this country was when some Moslems wanted to build a "Victory Mosque" at 9/11 Ground Zero.

I doubt that college administrators or school board officials would attack Moslems or other non-Christian groups for praying, they'd more likely celebrate their diversity.

[Boomhauer]

And what will be the Right's reaction when a Muslim Imam, Jewish Rabbi, or Satanic practitioner does the same?  Hopefully they will welcome it as being in the best spirit of the First Amendment.

I’ve heard this “what if” threat my entire life always in attempt to keep prayer out of schools at all costs.

Well guess what? It doesn’t work anymore in a world where teachers are grooming and raping kids and trying to turn them against their parents and into good little liberal robots. It doesn’t work anymore in the world of drag queen story hour bullshit and the new push to legalize pedophilia.

[Ben]

You have to understand this about leftists:

What they like is compulsory. What they dislike is banned.

Anything outside of that -- like choosing to pray -- in their world is akin to *forced* prayer.

I agree with this quote. I can hate something without banning it. The left has trouble in this regard. Just like with their interpretation of "separation of church and state". It's not freedom FROM religion, it's freedom OF religion.

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with this quote. I can hate something without banning it. The left has trouble in this regard. Just like with their interpretation of "separation of church and state". It's not freedom FROM religion, it's freedom OF religion.

It's that, and more.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ratified December 15, 1791. So this has been the law of the land for 230+ years, and the media (and most politicians) still don't know what it says.

[WLJ]

Noticed the vote was 6-3 AGAIN

The high court ruled 6-3 Monday in Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District along ideological lines for Joseph Kennedy, a former part-time assistant coach. Every Republican-appointed justice sided with Kennedy; every Democratic-appointed justice dissented.

[De Selby]

Some thoughtful extracts from the dissent - the problem here isn’t a coach praying, which he is entitled to do. It’s a government official using their position to promote one religion over others to students, which if this were a Muslim or Satanist absolutely would not be met with the same accolades from the usual suspects:

Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched. A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so.

…
 

Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this Court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection. In doing so, the Court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing States to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance. As much as the Court protests otherwise, today’s decision is no victory for religious liberty.

[Hawkmoon]

Some thoughtful extracts from the dissent - the problem here isn’t a coach praying, which he is entitled to do. It’s a government official using their position to promote one religion over others to students, which if this were a Muslim or Satanist absolutely would not be met with the same accolades from the usual suspects:

How is one man, praying by himself, promoting one religion over another?

[De Selby]

How is one man, praying by himself, promoting one religion over another?

Because he wasn’t praying by himself - he invited his students, the opposing team, and eventually members of the public, politicians, and the media to attend and promote his prayers on the 50 yard line.

Indeed, the school wrote him a letter recognising his right to pray, and asking that he do so privately while performing his employment duties rather than publicly at the 50 yard line while inviting students to join him.

[WLJ]

Because he wasn’t praying by himself - he invited his students, the opposing team, and eventually members of the public, politicians, and the media to attend and promote his prayers on the 50 yard line.

Indeed, the school wrote him a letter recognising his right to pray, and asking that he do so privately while performing his employment duties rather than publicly at the 50 yard line while inviting students to join him.

Article in the OP words it a bit differently and the difference in wording may seem minor but it is key

Kennedy, who served in the Marine Corps for nearly two decades, started coaching at the school in 2008 and initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. But students and players soon joined him and he began giving short talks with religious references.

[De Selby]

Article in the OP words it a bit differently and the difference in wording may seem minor but it is key

So he soon began preaching in the work garb of his employer, to students there for a school function. That is why the school was in its rights to say “please do the praying privately, and preach at your own events on your own time.”

[JN01]

Because he wasn’t praying by himself - he invited his students, the opposing team, and eventually members of the public, politicians, and the media to attend and promote his prayers on the 50 yard line.

Indeed, the school wrote him a letter recognising his right to pray, and asking that he do so privately while performing his employment duties rather than publicly at the 50 yard line while inviting students to join him.

So they respect his rights and the rights of those who agree with him as long as they stay in the closet.

[WLJ]

So he soon began preaching in the work garb of his employer, to students there for a school function. That is why the school was in its rights to say “please do the praying privately, and preach at your own events on your own time.”

He was preaching to students? Where did you see that?
He was praying which was in his rights and some joined him which is in their rights.

[De Selby]

He was preaching to students? Where did you see that?
He was praying which was in his right and some joined him which is in their rights.

That part about him ministering to students is quoted in your post, and that he was preaching and giving religious commentary is covered extensively in the judgment.

The point is that employers and especially government employers can ask their employees not to preach to students at work events, and to pray privately so as to not give the impression that the employer promotes one religion to students over another.

[MechAg94]

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought I read the coach was doing this after the game.  If true, that would be after the event is over.  It was about as voluntary as you can get while still being at a public event. 

Edit:  Looking at the articles posted above, yes, it was after the games.  The school event is over.  Anyone who wants to can leave. 

[De Selby]

So they respect his rights and the rights of those who agree with him as long as they stay in the closet.

No. Just not on his government employer’s time at official functions, much the same as any other work context. The school district made clear there was no issue with him praying, preaching, even going to the media to preach so long as it was not in connection with his employment.

[WLJ]

That part about him ministering to students is quoted in your post, and that he was preaching and giving religious commentary is covered extensively in the judgment.

"short talks with religious references" does not necessarily mean preaching. I can include religious references in a conversation  with someone and that doesn't mean I'm preaching to them.

[MechAg94]

No. Just not on his government employer’s time at official functions, much the same as any other work context. The school district made clear there was no issue with him praying, preaching, even going to the media to preach so long as it was not in connection with his employment.

In this case, I don't see it as doing this on work time.  This is after the school event is over. 

If he changed into a neutral shirt and hat, would you consider that no longer in connection to his work?  Seems like the wrong place to draw that line.