Supreme Court rules for coach in public school prayer case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court ruled Mondaythat a Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games, a decision that could lead to more acceptance of religious expression in public schools.
The ruling was a victory for Joseph Kennedy, who claimed that the Bremerton School District violated his religious freedom by telling him he couldn't pray so publicly after the games. The district said it was trying to avoid the appearance that the school was endorsing a religious point of view.
In recent years, a more conservative Supreme Court has been inclined to view government actions it once considered to be neutral and necessary to maintain separation of church and state as hostile to religious expression.
One issue in the case was whether the coach's decision to pray in such a prominent place, on the 50-yard line, amounted to a private moment of giving thanks or a public demonstration of his religious faith that his players may have felt compelled to join.
Kennedy urged the Supreme Court to find that he was acting on his own behalf, expressing his own religious views, not speaking not as a mouthpiece for the school. But the school district said the students on the football team looked up to their coach and felt coerced into doing as he did.
Post game prayer (Meegan M. Reid / Kitsap Sun via AP file)
He became an assistant coach of the varsity football team at Bremerton High School in 2008 and later began offering a brief prayer on the field after games ended and the players and coaches met midfield to shake hands. The school district eventually told him he should find a private location for praying.
But he declined and continued his practice of dropping to one knee and praying on the 50-yard line. He later invited journalists and a state legislator to watch. The district gave him a poor performance evaluation, and he did not apply to renew his contract after the 2015 football season. Kennedy sued, claiming violations of his right to free expression and religious freedom.
Lower federal courts said because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.
Kennedy now lives in Florida but has said that if the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, he would return to Bremerton and seek to regain his job as a part-time football coach.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Translation: The coach was engaged in a private act of faith.
In public on school grounds.
You can't pray "in public?"
No, it offends the triggered.
If you think he wasn't doing it for anything other than show....
Possibly the most ignorant and uninformed comment to ever grace NT.
And THAT is saying something.
[deleted]
You mean the peaceful protestors, the enlightened and the nasty?
I guess I stepped into my people on ignore fan club.
You knew what was in his heart & mind?
Yep, when he invites the press to watch.
We are not talking about Kaepernick here.
Have at it. I am done with Vic's articles. No more. You all can wallow in what you all create yourselves.
Good for you. Now you know how I feel about three posters here.
Lol ..... no doubt
The way you “ignore” people, is quite interesting.
Dude... That comment is not in the top 50.
We've spent the last 4 days reading completely hysterical gobshite about how we're living in The Handmaid's Tale, or how women have "no control" over their own bodies, or ....true story... we're returning to slavery. People have lost their minds. Completely.
There is a point to be made about the nature of these public prayers and how there definitely IS an element of doing it for show. In evangelical life, we would say "as a witness". This guy chooses to pray conspicuously instead of privately because public prayer achieves things private prayer does not.
The key question here that liberals will absolutely refuse to answer is "if a Muslim teacher was leading these prayers for Muslim kids, would they object?" But it's also a great question for the pro-prayer parents.
Hey, I know it’s a pretty high bar but pretty sure that comment Fosbury Flopped right over it.
People would do well to stop worrying about other people and concentrate on the righteousness of their own actions.
Generation Narcissist in action ......
That probably got you on the list.
Already safely there ..... allegedly .....
[Deleted]
You too ?
Good cut n' paste.
This liberal would. But this SCOTUS decision has now made that a moot point. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and all other faiths now have been sanctioned to pray on the 50-yard line
I'll be the one laughing when the SCA pulls up with their Baphomet statue.
Of course. As they should be.
A melting pot of free people exercising freedoms in a free country.
And it's almost the 4th of July.
Jesus told his followers not to do that, but like many other books the bible is a book that conservatives have never read. . Matthew 6:6-7. Maybe Christians should obey their own bible or would that be a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs?
The problem with this decision is that it is a violation of the separation of church and state because the coach is a state actor. This decision will s be seen as the hypocritical farce that it is when other religions such as the Satanists, Pagans, atheists, and Muslims start to pray on public school property and the job as well as to coerce students to prray a different religion. This religious decision doesn't just apply to Christians but to teachers and coaches of all faiths taking part in prayer during their job and coercing students to take part.
The screeching of conservative Christians will be amazing when that happens because they can not deny equal opportunities to other faith to do the same as this coach.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "private"? You cannot have a "private" act of faith on the 50 yard line in front of hundreds of onlookers.
So, once again this right wing radical Supreme Court chooses to ignore all past rulings by previous Supreme Courts, and rule contrary to history.
Lower federal courts said because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.
I wonder how different their decision would have been if it had been a Muslim praying in the middle of the field?
One of the words, along with public that has been misused here many times. Are you claiming the Justices don't know the law?
Sure you can, did it many times.
And no one was forced to observe it. In any case .....
Apparently, at least 5 of them don't. Or are you claiming all the previous judges that upheld Roe v Wade were wrong?
They know the law. They intend to change the law.
That they do.
They intend to change the law.
Yes, the law wrongly enacted by Harry Blackmun and Co.
And, according to you apparently, wrongly upheld dozens of times in court.
I’ve got news for you, it happens multiple times, every night in the US under the Friday night lights ..... and you don’t even know it. In the huddles, individuals to themselves, on every yard line, before the game, after the game, in front of thousands of people, who haven’t a clue. Well those of who were out there do.
It seems to me that the people who are offended by this could simply look the other way and mind their own business but no ..... they gotta try to manipulate others to their way of thinking. It’s BS.
A coach praying on the 50 yard line is absolutely a constitutionally protected act. SCOTUS got this one right. No matter how some try to spin it otherwise.
How can it be EVERY night, but only under the FRIDAY night lights? Does the week consist of 7 Fridays in your red colored world?
If those thousands of people don't have a clue about it, it is not being done publicly. It may be in a public area, but the act is being done privately. The coach was doing publicly so everyone knew what he was doing.
Even the boys on the team who felt that if they didn't participate the coach would punish them? Even them?
Bullshit. That's your opinion that has1 single finding for you, but thousands of times prior has been shown to be wrong. This current extreme right wing majority SCOTUS is making decisions that fly in the face of decades of previous decisions by local, state, federal, and even previous Supreme courts.
Obviously someone here thinks that the only sport played under the lights is football on a Friday night. No soccer. No Lacrosse. No tennis. No rugby. Nothing.
The purpose is to deflect, redirect, attempt to redefine the written word. In others words, lie to push a narrative.
It’s weak sauce, every time.
Yep, it’s not a tough job so everyone should be doing it.
Private and public are opposites. He was engaged in a public act of faith:
It was the public aspect that brought this practice into question. Now the question is answered.
Since when is faith restricted to the confines of a Church?
The free exercise of religion has prevailed.
Who said it was?
I'm glad to hear that we agree.
Hold an obvious truth as such and we will agree more.
Recognize the truth and we'll do even better.
Says the guy who holds that China extemporaneously infected the entire planet with COVID-19 in the hope that it would cause Trump to lose the election.
What China did when the pandemic burst forth in their country is well known:
It absolutely led to the defeat of Trump in 2020. Oh, that's right, you can't be open minded on anything that pertains to Trump.
It is certainly not well known that China intentionally infected the planet. Your conspiracy theory remains ridiculous.
Oh but it is. Did you read the link?
They knew it was a deadly virus. Proof of which was that they locked down all domestic traffic. Then they allowed flights to go out to the rest of the world.
Very easy to understand. No education required.
Amazing after all this time and you still believe the ridiculous conspiracy theory that China intentionally infected the planet.
Large lettering and blue print won't do it.
Clearly, since you continue to hold this ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Utterly amazing that someone could actually believe that China would extemporaneously use the breakout of a virus to intentionally plunge the planet into a pandemic on the hope that it would cause Trump to lose.
Ahh, there it is...the fixation with Trump. The country wouldn't be suffering now if he had been reelected.
Repeating won't help either.
The Trump aspect came from you Vic. You are the one who argued that China was motivated to plunge the world into a pandemic to get at Trump.
Your conspiracy theory is absurd so your talk of holding to the truth is a fantasy.
A lot of people have done things to Trump, including US government agencies. It's not really in the realm of fantasy.
The fact that others have 'done things to Trump' is irrelevant. You justify your ridiculous conspiracy theory that China infected the planet to get at Trump with 'a lot of people have done things to Trump'?
Not as far as I'm concerned.
You justify your ridiculous conspiracy theory that China infected the planet to get at Trump with 'a lot of people have done things to Trump'?
Reasons for why China let the virus out to the world are basically conjecture. That being said, Trump had finally turned the tables on the ridiculous trade agreements with China that caused so much damage to this country and greatly benefitted China.
A failure then of basic logic:
No, Vic, that is an invalid argument. Where 'invalid' is referring to the validity concept of propositional logic.
And some conjectures are ridiculous.
Here's one more. If another nation does anything to China, it could happen again.
Did you know there was a hoax and two investigations based on that hoax?
Did you know that FISA warrant applications were doctored?
Did you know that the media demonized him at every opportunity?
Did you know that rioters burned a church and were only yards away from storming the White House?
Did you know there were two bogus impeachments?
Conspiracy theories are typically the antithesis of truth since they are almost always based on wild speculation and bias.
And let us never forget the "Russian disinformation!"
The difference is that I never engaged in conspiracy theories; you did and still do.
Not recently. Recently there have been OPINIONS based on the obvious.
Remember not long ago how we heard that a FISA application had many safeguards that would keep everything Kosher. How did the FISA Court do when it came to making sure the FBI was honest?
The difference is that you hate Trump and I will always be in his debt for setting this country on the right course for 4 years, while under constant fire.
I have told you already that I do not hate Trump. My objection to Trump holding public office has nothing whatsoever to do with emotion. My reasons, which I have stated dozens of times, are all based on what Trump has done.
You can credit Trump for whatever you wish, Vic, but his profound failures in office which illustrate an abysmal character should cause everyone to never vote for him again.
Finally, you dodged from conspiracy theories (what we were discussing) by bringing up Trump.
[deleted]
No. He wasn't.
His prayer at the homecoming was in public and since he was a public employee and on the job, can be considered an act of the state.
You used the same argument to defend Colin Kaepernick. Back then our liberal wing told us that his freedoms existed everywhere.
Show me where I said that Keapernick was a public employee.
Employees for a public entity represent that public entity while on the job. Anything that the employee does while on the job reflects on the public entity and can reasonably be construed to be sanctioned by the public entity, especially an act at an event like a homecoming game.
I don't care if he prays on his own time, or silently wherever he is, but the fact that he was being public about what he was doing combined with the fact that he was actively courting media attention means that he was not simply doing it as an act of faith but had other motives as well.
Colin Kapernick was not a public actor when he was praying. This is an issue of the separation of church and state because the coach was employed by the government at the time. The state is to be neutral on all issues of faith, so he should not be praying and coercing students to take part on the job.
Captain meme strikes again ..... pow, bang, zoom!
Of course you would post some stupid meme like that. Meme are easy. But governing and life is not. I hope you are smart enough to realize that once again, some liberals try to condense all people issues down to a. . . stupid meme. Once again, trying to 'discount' peoples religious beliefs. Pathetic.
Progressives have a real issue with folks that are not their kind.
Real issues .....
I'm not sure what Tessy' said but I probably would have agreed with it.
they are giving catholics a bad name
Who is they?
Who sees the bad name?
Why do they pay attention to this minority?
huh?
Are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett giving catholics a bad name?
Who sees the bad name? Who stigmatizes catholics based on this bunch
Why do they pay attention to this minority? Why don't they pay attention to the good that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are doing/
You left out Gorsuch who was raised catholic but now worships as an Episcopal.
It does look a bit like the catholics are not only way overrepresented on the court but are imposing their religious values on their rulings.
Yeah, I remember when we elected our first Catholic president. A lot of people freaked out then as well.
I remember too. My dad freaked.
One of the few times I saw my parents cry, when JFK was assasinated.
Ditto
Good luck with that....
It would have been Ok if he had just copped a knee and prayed during the National Anthem.
Lol ..... great minds .....
Unless the school & school board asked him not to, based on decades of similar cases being found in favor of the schools, many times by SCOTUS.
The school board was acting prudently based on "settled law".
Coach was asked multiple times to stop and instead he literally made a federal case out of it.
No wonder they did not offer him another contract.
Now he's free to apply again after 6 years?
One take a knee (Kaepernick) good.
This take a knee bad ..... /S
So he quits and then sues....I want to know who bankrolled all of this.
I assume not George Soros, his money is tied up other places.
So no clue aye?
No clue and I don't care. I have a feeling they will get paid back and schools will be more careful with their actions in the future.
George Soros funding crazy leftist narratives ...... good
Anyone funding a fight for religious freedoms .... bad.
Got it?
I think so. It is so confusing trying to keep up with their rules (not to mention keep count of how many genders there are on any given day)
The opposite people that bankroll BLM and Antifa?
One is left to wonder how this would have played out if Joseph Kennedy rolled out a prayer rug and kneeled facing Mecca.
Very doubtful. He was too busy with bootlegging, stock manipulation and bagging the 1960 election.
How 'fortunate' for you there are "several" people/squirrels named Joseph Kennedy.
Where there any good ones?
You tell me, your seeded article is about one of them. I assume you read it?
I just thought I'd make sure both got a little kick.
One has to wonder if the school would have had a problem with that to begin with. Or if the school would have told anyone that complained there was nothing they could do. Interesting thought but only conjecture at this point.
It's an excellent question. It's also one we'll be dealing with in this country before long.
If one group is free to pray (and I think it's clear they should be), then other groups must be equally free.
Sounds good to me. Maybe there will be signs for each religion so different groups can join in at the end of a game, and I will have to deal with less traffic getting out.
Basic 1st amendment freedom.
A win for tolerance and free speech.
no surprise the intolerant are most triggered.
Haters gotta hate ...... they just gotta!
And if they don't have a legitimate reason they will just make one up.
This was not an issue of tolerance and free speech. It was an issue of separation of church and state because the coach is a state actor/employee.
So somebody got bent out of shape because the players decided, on their own, to join their coach mid-field.
Kneeling on the "50 yard line" is inherently ostentatious, designed to call attention to himself. No honest person could argue otherwise. The question is whether or not it is "constitutional" to call attention to himself praying at a public high school football game.
Yup
Exactly, like kneeling on the sidelines during the National Anthem, it screams, look at me, I’m special.
Here.
You might learn something.
Good thing Kaepernick still has a job with the NFL. /s Otherwise his "rights" would have been violated.
Your sarcasm fails here. If a professional football player (clearly distinguished from the crowd and very public) does something different than the other players (like kneeling during the National Anthem) that most definitely is calling attention to that player.
How about the 25 yard line?
Apples and dump trucks. Who says this guy will ever work again for one thing. For another, CK was going downhill prior to his NOT getting another job.
Oh, that's right, he had a right to kneel on the sidelines as the National Anthem was played. I guess the 1st Amendment only extends to white hating, America hating third string quarterbacks.
Other teams defenses figured him out and a way to defense him. He had a terrible last year and no one wanted him (and his baggage).
I think your point about his talent is irrelevant, but I will answer it anyway. For most of the years, if not all of them, since he was let go , he has remained equally or more talented than many of the quarterbacks who have second or third string jobs in the NFL. He said almost immediately that he would accept not being a starter.
The supposition that some NFL team, would not hire him if could help the team, is absolutely ridiculous.
The point is to win games after all.
Obviously not an opinion shared by any NFL teams which are not known for making decisions that can hurt them make money or get a Lombardi trophy.
A "professional" protesting the American Flag or Anthem in an arena
vs a public employee praying publicly at a taxpayer built and owned high school facility?
If he was a good quarterback, he would have a job.
Both are completely within their rights. Just like Tim Tebow praying in the end zone.
Riiiiiiight. Who needs talent in the NFL??
Do you understand how the salary cap works?
The idea that the constitution has spoken on this issue, now or before, is just silly. The constitution says nothing about a governmental employee praying in public at a government facility. One can easily argue it violates state and church separation, and one can also argue it is a private act.
The SC decision is a political decision based on a far right majority on the Court. That is all it is.
The CotUS is vague on almost every issue. What the CotUS 'says' on an issue is what the SCotUS states that it 'says'. And now that the SCotUS is ultra-conservative, the CotUS has magically become ultra-conservative too.
I doubt there would have been any issue if the coach had simply prayed in the bleachers. Going out into the middle of the field and inviting reporters to witness is likely what brought this into question.
Yep.
It's called the 1st Amendment.
Both the free speech and free exercise of religion provisions came into play on this one.
I believe at some point Jesus said it was preferable that prayer be more private .
Why did this coach feel the need to proselytize at a football game? Open, ostentatious prayer does equate to proselytizing.
That's funny, I thought he was all about TOLERANCE!!!!
We also have separation of Chuch and State and somehow you seem to forget it.
There is a reason for that and this court seems to forget that.
With all due respect, it is separation from, not the exclusion of religion. That means the US government cannot endorse a single religion. The 1st Amendment provides for the free exercise of religion.
There is a reason for that and this court seems to forget that.
The left will not be able to use this Court. From now on they'll have to win elections.
Lol he wasn’t trying to convert anyone. He was taking a moment to pray for himself. You blow this way out of proportion.
Way out
When the state endorses and pushes only one religion I’ll agree with you. Until that day happens ...... nope.
This is not a matter of left, Vic. It is a matter of using one's position to push their own personal agenda. As a coach (and a teacher), his public prayer is an endorsement of a specific faith. I personally am not comfortable with that and his students may feel the same way.
He is a leader in his community (the school). Public schools do not allow for that and there is a reason. Try being a minority faith and not feeling uncomfortable with that. If his intent was to just pray, he didn't need to make it a public presentation.
What about the 1st Amendment?
A little tolerance for others might be a unifying gesture.
It's not absolute Vic. If it were then teachers could talk about their own beliefs in class like CRT, right? As teachers, we have restrictions on what we can and can not do. He can pray, but privately. Self-initiated student prayer in schools has been upheld in the courts, but not by educators.
So you totally ignored my point about being a minority faith. Walk a mile in my shoes.
You mean they're not?
Aren't we going a little off course? He didn't pray in school, did he?
Like many folks I don’t. His religious liberties shouldn’t be restricted simply because he is a coach or a teacher. His actions did nothing to push his faith on anyone else.
I didn't ignore it. I've been thinking about that since prayer was taken out of the schools. To this day I don't know how I feel about that.
Walk a mile in my shoes. That knife cuts both ways.
He did if it is on the school's field.
“The left will not be able to use this Court. From now on they'll have to win elections.”
The most dangerous thing one can say, much less support…doing so is in direct opposition to the intent of our founding principles.
No it doesn't. It is a public school and therefore, there is separation of church and state. If I wanted that for my children I would send them to a religious school, where he is free to pray in his faith.
I just can't wait till a Muslim coach does this.
Your opinion and only your opinion.
Prayer has no business in a public school. If you want prayer, send them to a religious school.
No, it wasn't my opinion and only mine. It was the courts until this batch got in.
Apparently Chuck Schumer allowed the Senate Chaplin to open this session with a prayer from inside the Senate Chamber and Nancy Pelosi allowed Rep. Cleaver to do the same in the House.
Yes it does and the fact that you think it doesn’t is the end of this conversation.
Huh? I wrote down why it doesn't.
Yes and ruled strictly based on the constitution.
Yep, it’s going to get sporty in this country if this keeps going. Whatever it takes, I support the original intent of the constitution.
Too bad you don’t
What he did was to express "a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by" the First Amendment," according to Justice Gorsuch.
You know, I am not an expert on what goes on in Congress, but I am pretty well versed in public schools.
So please try to stop playing "gotchya" with me. This is limited to public schools.
I didn't see anywhere where it said WHAT faith he is. Perhaps he is a minority faith like the person in your shoes or..........maybe that Muslim coach you mentioned.......................
He didn't have to do a public display and that is what is at issue, not if he had the right to pray privately.
The 1st has its limitations, you know.
And I explained why it does in this seed. Sorry you are apparently confused by an opinion that doesn’t align perfectly with yours.
I'm not advocating for that. I'm still undecided about that. The concept of minority rule is still on my mind.
Oh, come on Jim. He isn't Muslim and he isn't Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist. Give me a break. And btw, I wouldn't support them either for doing this because it is a public school and we have a separation of church and state which makes us very different from any other country in this world.
Such as?
As prayer in school.
First of all, if you are going to be snarky with me, I might respond in kind. It has not been my personal opinion till now. It has been the courts and this is a reversal.
As I said, I can't wait for the first Muslim coach to do this.
Right now, nobody disputes that. A brief prayer on the field is something else.
It would be a lot more on your mind if the coach was Muslim.
A brief prayer before walking out on the field and making it a public display would be something else.
Lets keep it civil. The line is getting close.
And that is Justice Gorsuch's opinion. He did it very publicly. That breaks from all other decisions on this prior to this court.
And how would you feel if it was a Muslim coach? He is then protected, right?
You know what...I don't think the school would have complained.
His opinion counts.
And how would you feel if it was a Muslim coach? He is then protected, right?
Right. And I don't think the school would of had a problem, but we'll never know, unless it happens.
Excuse me, but frankly, I think you live by whatever suits what you want. I live by what has been precident until we got a strictly conservative court, who are doing what they want.
The intent of our founders was that we were supposed to not have a separation of church and state. It is clearly stated in our constitution.
Now you better stop with the insults, or I will flag you.
First of all ...... I’m not the one being snarky here. First of all? Really? First of all? Preach much?
Not your personal opinion until now?
I can’t count the times I prayed on the field as a player, with others players/coaches/parents/fans and yet no one complained. We are about the same age, I’m sure you witnessed the same thing many times. Or maybe NY is different from Michigan.
I call BS this just starting to be your opinion after this decision was rendered.
The case involved a public school but the legal issue was the separation of church and state.
Vic, you still didn't answered my question. How would you feel if it was a Muslim coach?
This is a slippery slope.
[deleted]
I wouldn't like it
This is a slippery slope.
It could very well be. The only question must be: Is it Constitutional?
Another knife that cuts both ways ....
I have not been snarky to you Sparty, other than posting, and nothing personal to you until then.
I'm calling BS on that. I have never seen that as a parent or as a teacher. That was because, until this ruling, it was not allowed. If you saw it, it was against previous rulings.
AS far as I'm concerned, throw that prayer rug right over the opposing teams emblem in the middle of the field...
It won't slide anywhere...
Muslim coach has as much right as a Christian one to his individual religious practices...
Vic it hasn't been in previous cases in the past:
In the Supreme Court decision Lee v. Weisman , 505 U.S. 577 (1992), a slim majority broadly interpreted the First Amendment’s establishment clause, limiting the role religion plays in public schools by prohibiting prayer at school-sponsored activities .
In 1989 Principal Robert E. Lee invited Rabbi Leslie Gutterman to deliver a nonsectarian invocation and benediction at a middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, Rhode Island.
Weisman argues school prayer constituted government endorsement of religion
Deborah Weisman was among the graduates. Her father, Daniel, unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the rabbi from speaking, and the Weismans attended the ceremony. In the benediction, Rabbi Gutterman said, “O God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity for learning. . . . We give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us, and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion.”
Weisman then filed for a permanent injunction preventing local school officials from inviting clergy to recite prayers at school ceremonies.
He argued the practice constituted governmental endorsement of religion and thus violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The school district responded that the prayers did not demonstrate a state endorsement of religion because they were nonsectarian, participation in the prayer itself was voluntary, and the practice was deeply rooted in American history.
Kennedy says state is forbidden from requiring 'religious conformity from a student'
After the lower courts ruled for Weisman, the district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was joined by the George H. W. Bush administration as amicus curiae. There, both the district and the administration urged the Court to use the case to overrule the three-pronged Lemon test , which had controlled the establishment clause cases since Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stated that “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried out by the government, and that is what the school officials attempted to do.”
Noting the possibility of psychological coercion , Kennedy stated, “The Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student at the price of attending her own high school graduation.” Moreover, the Court declined the invitation to revisit Lemon, concluding that previous school prayer cases provided ample precedent for the case.
I never said it was. I said that it violates the separation of church and state.
Yes he does, but not in a public school.
I'm not sure if it's Confucius or was it Mr Moto who said "Do unto others as you have others do unto you."
She has been civil.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. Happened most every Friday night here, still did until this little fiasco.
Happened a lot after some college games as well. Sometimes entire teams, sometimes both teams together, for those who wanted to participate.
I’m shocked you’ve never seen it so I guess NY is different from Michigan and/or you don’t regularly go to sporting events
And you keep bringing up Muslim coaches/players. I’ve got no problem with anyone else exercising their religious freedom as they see fit. As long it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.
A coach simply praying privately on the field infringes on no one.
[removed]
[.]
The use of the word 'privately' here is demonstrably false. Praying in the middle of the field and inviting reporters to observe is public. Praying privately would be like going to his office and praying by himself.
I'm aware of the Weisman case. I understand the ruling. You see, I can abide by the ruling if it was correctly decided even if I don't like it. I think we should all feel that way,
PS
This does not involve school prayer
Opinions do vary.
No one was forced to observe him. Privately
How do you know he was praying? Perhaps he was just collecting his thoughts. Whatever ....
Not really interested in getting into another debate with you about the definition of words so I’ll just say that my opinion differs from yours and cede that all important last word to you.
I can't get my hand to ticket Marines.
I have been going to games for years and never once seen that.
This is not about infringement. It is about separation of church and state, and as you have seen from my post here: 11.2.54 , even in conservative courts this has been upheld.
Btw... the whole Muslim question happened in your state and it was not tolerated. There was a whole issue about it on the TV show "All American Muslim" and for the record, it showed other public schools on the field and no one was publicly praying, not even the religious school the public school was playing since it was on public school property.
Of course, it was. They brought prayer to a public school function. The fact that there is a separation of church and state in public schools.
Let's don't pretend there isn't a massive difference between an optional prayer at an optional extra curricular activity and an inescapable lecture in a mandatory classroom setting.
It's not like the playbook is religious. Now, if the QB gets in the huddle and calls "Jesus Saves - on one - on one - readyyyyy...... break", then yeah, that's a problem.
Based on that logic, we'll need to outlaw all public displays of religion for public educators. What about the volleyball coach who wears a hijab? Or the basketball coach in a yamaka?
And what constitutes "privately"? If he prays in the locker room...is that private? If he's in his car in the parking lot and people see him praying as they walk into the stadium...is that private? Or does he have to shut himself in the janitor's closet?
And now educators have the same rights as everybody else. Congratulations.
Your comfort level is your decision. You don't get to limit the rights of others because you're "uncomfortable".
Absolutely. It'll be great.
And here's the thing.... if this were a Muslim coach leading a bunch of Muslim players with their foreheads on the ground for sunset prayers, nobody would have an issue with it.
In an ideal world, we'll have several sets of kids and coaches saying their own prayers in their own way for all the world to see. Because that's what America is supposed to be about.
Brief?
I went to a Catholic HS and played football and it did not take long to figure out
to go along with Coach or ride the bench, run longer and do more reps at practice.
Compared to the post game Kennedy show,
School prayer in Catholic schools is brief.
So if someone does something in public and nobody is forced to observe it, the act per your redefinition of the words 'public' and 'private' is 'private'?
It is amusing watching someone stoop to redefining basic words in a futile attempt to be correct.
Nobody is forced to watch the PotUS give a speech in public so in your bizarro world a public speech is actually given in private.
And now you double down on feeble / ridiculous rebuttals.
Yeah, when you try to redefine common words such as public and private I can see why you would flee from a debate. After all, I have the English language backed up by every dictionary on my side and you have absurdity on yours.
If he prays while alone then that is private. If he prays in his office then that is private (unless he invited an audience to witness the event). If he is alone in his car then that is private. If he is praying while walking and not addressing anyone else, that is private.
Public means that he is praying in front of an audience. The coach in the middle of the field right after a game kneeling and praying on the 50 yard line is doing so in public. Now if he were to return a few hours later when the crowd no longer was there and prayed alone on the field, that would be private.
All IMO.
There are areas of gray of course, but this is not one of them.
Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr. Kennedy penalized athletes in any way for not praying with him?
From a WPost article:
For years, Kennedy took a knee and bowed after games, and nothing came of it . From the stands, it might hav e looked like nothing more than someone tying a shoe . But then some of the Knights decided they would pray, as well. And they invited players from opposing teams. There were prayers in the locker room and photos of what looked like Kennedy praying while holding helmets of both teams.
The school district decided it had a problem in the 2015 season, when an opposing coach told Bremerton’s principal that he “ ‘thought it was pretty cool how [the District] would allow’ Kennedy’s religious activity,” the district said in its court brief.
The homecoming game was the culmination. Kennedy was joined in his postgame prayer by members of the public, a state legislator and the media. “Spectators jumped over the fence to reach the field and people tripped over cables and fell,” the district said in its brief. “School band members were knocked over.”
The next week, a group of Satanists demanded equal access to the field.
Jack, I have to say, that I wasn't going to answer you since this is just sarcasm with some theoretical questions, but I will since they bear answering.
Prayer is something we do actively. It is not a garment we wear, and for the record, even that was cleared up by the courts and clothing can not be determined by a school.
I am not going to answer the rubbish about privately. But we all know that you can say grace in school. You just don't say it in the middle of football field in front of a crowd.
Because that has happened, not. And what about if there were a few people who were not Muslim there. Is that OK?
In an ideal world, we would not have to do public displays of one's personal beliefs in a public school... but then suddenly..... this court.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the coach, on the 50 yard line, immediately after a game, when the public are still there, in plain public view, in a position that is indicative of prayer, was actually praying in private?
he was probably praying that he was a high school football coach in texas on a winning team.
I assure you it's not.
They're not theoretical at all. We currently have students playing sports in hijabs. Do you think none of them will become coaches?
Wearing a specifically religious garment is an active public statement of faith.
Also, the courts have also cleared up that prayer cannot be stopped by the school. The only distinction here is between students praying and an employee praying.
It's the whole basis of your argument, so your refusal to address it is disappointing.
So where is this line, exactly? Can he pray in the end zone? How about in the locker room? He can say grace...but can he say it in the student cafeteria with 20 football players? Where...precisely...does "public" stop and "private" start?
Well... you know... we should never ever plan for something to happen that hasn't happened before. Much better to bury our heads in the sand. (There's your sarcasm.)
Hell yes. Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
So people should not make public displays of their faith....why...exactly? Because it makes you "uncomfortable"?
Or simply the safety of the players.
Since he left Wash St to retire in Florida, his prayers were never answered.
Which of the facts I listed are in question? Walk me through your reasoning.
I didn't argue anything, serious or not. I simply pasted what a WPost reporter wrote and provided the link. Do you think that the reporter was trying to argue that nonsense?
You posted it thus the normal expectation is that you support what you posted. If not, then what is your position?
As I figured, you have nothing to offer.
I didn't take the W Post report as taking a position
I don't have one as I haven't read the SCOTUS opinion yet.
Game set match.
Exactly, the final point between Kennedy and Bremerton has been played and Kennedy won.
Maybe if he wasn't ostentatious about it
But you are allowed to wear any garment you like in a school, even a teacher can. This was tested in the 70's when kids were going to school in clothing that schools deemed inappropriate and ended up in the courts.
OK, privately is not this:
btw, it seems that the players feel obligated to join in with the coach. Do you think that every single one of them believe the way that this guy does? Do you think that there may be some social pressure involved? This is why teachers are not allowed to do this.
Well, we'll find out when the first non-Muslim kid bows his head to the ground and says "Allah Akbar" (god is great) and his folks have an issue with it. Btw... to Muslims, god is not Jesus.
No, because it can make a student uncomfortable not to participate, or have you not heard of peer pressure? I'm an adult, and have long gotten past that, but I do remember it well as a kid growing up.
1967. influx of new students from NY/NJ in our small town halfway thru the school year. strict dress and hair codes for males enforced by the gym teachers. new student "rocky" gets his head shaved in my gym class. his dad is a corporate lawyer. oops. less than a week later, no more hair and dress codes in the school district and the school has 3 new gym teachers. the former 3 were immediately drafted and 2 never made it back from vietnam alive. karma doesn't care.
At some point people are going to have to grapple with the fact that school vouchers will be used for madrasas and yeshivas as easily as parochial schools and some HS coach is going to lay down a prayer carpet pointing towards Mecca at the 50 yard line.
And then they will be beating a path to the refs again.
Not in Michigan you haven’t. I can’t explain it any more clearly. I have participated in and/or witnessed it happening probably hundreds of times over the years on public fields all over the state.
It appears the highest court in the land disagrees with that.
The intent of the founders on separation of church and state was clear. Having just separated from a country with a “state” religion, they wanted no part of that and declared their new “state” would have no single government mandated religion. No union of church and state. All were welcome.
It had nothing to do with a coach choosing to pray on a 50 yard line.
Nothing.
You think I deserve a ticket, you better give it Vic. Don’t fall into the same trap as some of our friends on the left.
No special treatment asked for or expected here ....
I never said that. I was simply trying to keep things within boundaries. It was a suggestion.
Don’t fall into the same trap as some of our friends on the left.
Never put me with them.
No special treatment asked for or expected here ...
I am well aware of your manly policy.
That's a very revealing statement.
It's obvious you never read Mathew 6:5
They wouldn;t have to...they would have hundreds of angry Christian parents to do the complaining
Why do you willfully ignore the establishment clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state which was the core issue of the coach(a state employee) praying on the job and coercing students to take part? Who told you that it was anything else but the separation of church and state?
Some really smart asshole named Tommy Jefferson wrote this.
It will be amazing when public school employees of other faiths do the same thing and coerce students to take part while on the job. Satanists, Pagans, Hindus, Muslims, and every other one but their own, and then we will see how conservatives really feel about religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
That's quite a word salad. The US has never endorsed any religion. BTW that is what separation of Church and state actually means.
Back to you...
Why are you demanding that prayers only take place inside a Church?
If he was praying privately he would not have been on the field for all to see. Those players are to be teams players and his action is a coercion. He needs to keep his religion to himself while he is a public school coach while on duty. This was not about his religious rights to pray but an action of the separation of church and state. Our religious rights as protected in the Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment are far from unlimited. There are also other religious limitations when your job is being employed by the state(a state actor).
Even Jesus said not to pray in public, Matthew 6:6-7. Would obeying the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Matthew be a violation of his christian faith?
He is a coach so his praying is a school endorsement of the christian faith when his in full views of the fans as well as the players who are coerced to take part because they are to follow the actions of the coach. He works for a public school and not a christian school, so prayer is not part of his duties. His job is not in any way religious, so he is required to be secualr in his job performance. If her wants to pray then he can do it privately in his office or on the sidelines in his head.
The separation of church and state means that the actions of the government as well as the employees while on duty are to be absiolutly secualr , so as top protect the equal religious and secular rights of all, including those of us who are not believers. You might want to read Jefferson, Madison and Adams on this issue because they never once said what you are claiming. Civil servants jobs duties are absolutely secualr and they must reamin that way while they are at work. If that is a problem then working for the government and being paid with tax dollars might not be a good fit for you.
F him and the crucifix that he rode in on.
That's a direct quote.
May I suggest reading the syllabus from Cornell University (link also includes the other documents) as it explains why SCOTUS disagreed that this was an issue with the Establishment clause. I think this does a good job of explaining the reasoning as to why the decision was given.
I have a minor in political philosophy and taught Poli-sci 100 at my alma mater for a semester. I am well versed in the separation of church and state. This was a political decision that is not based on precedent. The court should have followed the Engel v. Vitale precedent.
This is the problem,
I absolutely agree with the dissent,
Not true.
Only to a weak mind. If a coach smokes or chew tobacco in front of a player does that mean the player will smoke or chew? I only ask because I had several coaches do that in front of me and I picked up neither during my school days.
As ruled by SCOTUS, the state can not infringe on a person freedom of religion. Not sure why that seems to piss so many people off but they should go for an amendment to the constitution if it really bothers them that much. NO chance of that ever passing in this country.
No chance.
Lol .... I love it when the non religious, who regularly scoff at the concept of religion, try to use religion to to make a point. They don’t believe in it until it seems to support some pet narrative or another. Crazy, just crazy.
If you really knew what you were talking about you would know there are several places in the bible that say just the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:8 and 1 Thessolnians 5:16-18 for example.
That Matthew passage has less to do with where one is praying and more with why they are praying. Praying to simply to garner others attention misses the mark on several levels. Unless you were in his head you have no idea what his intentions were. He seems like he was a well liked guy by his players and students. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that and 20 years of military service alone.
As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not a constitutional scholar. My education and the majority of my working life has been in IT.
The ruling also stated (not the dissent) that Kennedy was praying like he had done for many years, during a minute after the game when coaches are free to handle personal issues and players are doing other things. Some players came up asking if they could join and Kennedy said it's a free country and they can do what they like. It's reported that some players joined in as they felt not doing so might limit their playing time. I don't know if that's true or not.
The decision may have been in part political, but I'm more a libertarian than anything else and believe in individual freedoms. And having played high school sports (oh so many years ago now) I always felt that my decisions were my own. I have no real problem with the ruling and would not have had any issue if the ruling had gone the other way. But there are times when I feel that too many people just have to look for something to object to.
His freedom of religion as a public school coach is not part of his job duties because of the separation of church and state. Our freedom of religious is far from absolute, anywhere. How many times dopes this need to be explain to you? Religion is not part of being a coach and those students cannot be expected to follow their coach and take part ion prayer that is not part of football or their own religious beliefs.
If he wants to be a coach and pray on the job then a religious school would be a better fit.
Jesus said that followers were not to pray in public. This coach was praying in a very public place in view of more than 5000 people, despite that very explicit teaching, so he was even being a good christian. If you are a christian then the teachings of Jesus are to take precedent over the words of others, but instead you are looking for loophole to ignore the teachings of the man who you claim to be the son of god and your savior. Do I also need top explain the word HYPOCRITE to you?
I may be a godless Humanist now but I was raised a very conservative christian, so the teachings of the bible are far from new to me.
Well in my opinion you are wrong and right now the SCOTUS agrees with me. Dems are spooling up to create quite a constitutional crisis. I doubt they are going to like the results that will come from that.
Then one can only surmise your use of that Matthew passage was disingenuous and intended to misinform. Otherwise you would not have used it in the manner you did.
And save your sanctimony for someone else. It’s wasted when it comes at me like that.
She has been told this in the past many times but she still tries to use it.
Hogwash... students and Muslim teachers are allowed to use public school areas for prayer. Do you suggest they attend religious schools also?
Understood but it bears repeating again.
She’s entitled to her opinion and so are we.
Who claimed it was part of his job duties?
Unless the State (school) is only letting certain religions pray or mandating/punishing students that participate/don't participate in the coach's prayer, they are violating his Constitutional right to freely exercise his religion.
That's what the Constitution says.
How about the decision of the lower federal courts that sided against him?
I can’t believe that they allow government officials to say “So help me God” when taking their oath of office and President’s using a Bible at their swearing in ceremony - outrageous.
“…when taking their oath of office and President’s using a Bible at their swearing in ceremony…”
An antiquated ritual whose time has passed.
That is, if one believes that accepting the responsibility of holding public office requires representing citizens of all faiths or no faith at all. Swear to that and let it be.
Exactly, I was shocked that Joe Biden chose to use one.
“Exactly, I was shocked that Joe Biden chose to use one.”
As was I when his predecessor held one upside down and another time cited those two Corinthians.
Biden, for all his faults, is at the very least faithful to his religion.
There was no surprise here, Trump knows nothing about Christianity.
“Trump knows nothing about Christianity.”
Agreed.
Hence the mind boggling and inexplicable sway he holds on the evangelical fringe of the party.
Pew polling last year indicated:
Once he achieved a critical mass of evangelicals, it became harder for any not to publicly support Trump. Their church community is very important to them, anti-Trumpers are going to risk their long-time relationships with pro-Trumpers.
Anyone who is a pro-Trumper at this stage is, IMO, irrational when it comes to Trump.
his religion is what he says it is. the 1st amendment gives every american that right.
neither did any of the catholic girls I dated in high school... [deleted]
You do not know much about Catholics if you think all (or even most) are absolutely devout and do whatever the RCC tells them to do.
You did not have to say that, you stated that Biden does not adhere to RCC teachings which implies 'good Catholics' all do so. They do not. So as you have affirmed, it is not at all unusual that a perfectly normal Catholic does not adhere to all RCC teachings.
Remember what you wrote ... I quoted the operative part to be clear:
My response to the above is: so what? Sounds like a normal Catholic to me. And thumbs up to the normal Catholics for daring to think for themselves.
Then your mention of Biden's faith has no significance.
It is!
You don't know anything about the Catholic faith. First and foremost a Catholic Christian is required to follow his or her conscience. From I've heard from Uncle Joe's own lips is that he follows his conscience when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion. He does not allow his faith to dictate to all people what they should believe or do
Catholics are not required to follow their conscience. I can't imagine any organized religion, certainly no Christian one I'm aware of , has ever told it's followers their own conscience determines what is acceptable behavior. For starters, such a doctrine would make them the equivalent of God, able to define sin. It's simply incompatible with any form of Christianity and would be considered by heresy by any religion I'm familiar with. Catholics are obliged to follow God's laws. To go against them is a sin, even if you think it shouldn't be. And to advocate that others should sin is, of course, a much greater sin.
Biden can call himself what he wants. I But to be a "good Catholic" means adhering to God's law as interpreted by the Catholic Church. Someone who picks and chooses which rules are convenient to follow is not a good Catholic.
Considering how the Catholic Church used to torture people to death and has done very little to stop its culture of pedophilia, I can't blame people for walking away from it.
Maybe trying to have it both ways and remain a member while disavowing this or that problematic aspect of the church is not an effective approach.
Did you forget that Joe Biden is an observant catholic? That means that he goes to church regularly and not just for the partisan photo op. .
You know, this coach was doing this for a year and a half before it became an issue... How did it become an issue?
Parents complaining that the coach "MIGHT" be pushing his beliefs onto the children, OR, "MAY" be using his belief to limit their child's playing time while on the team, OR, "MIGHT" be judging his players based upon their participation in the entirely voluntary prayer...
No actual proof of any of that being shown and the players were almost entirely supportive of the coach... They reported that they were NEVER pushed or required to participate in anything religious...
The Parents complained to the School, the school offered alternatives to prevent what the parents were accusing, which the coach refused...
The School District fired him...
This was a political firing based upon religious prejudice...
The Supreme Court was absolutely right to overturn it... The Individual free exercise of religion shall NOT be infringed is what is written in the constitution...
The whole wall of separation between church and state argument comes from a commentary on that religious right and the intent of the founders... The intent of the founders was that the government CANNOT stop an INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from acting on his religious beliefs at any time he so chooses... It is expressly prevented by the First Amendment... The open invitation he gave to anyone to participate if they so choose to, is an invitation to individual action...
IF he was representing a church or specific religious organization then they were absolutely right to fire him...
But to fire him cause he was expressing his individual right, and inviting others to do the same? absolutely WRONG!!!!
Seems like we have a Supreme Court that understands the Constitution and the founders intent better than any court we have had in the last 80 years...
If he did it privately it would have been fine, and this has been upheld by other courts, including conservative courts. Maybe it's this court who has it wrong.
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion...
But I'm very happy with this courts fundamental belief in the Constitution and what was intended by the founders...
Everyone speaks for the founders as if they knew them. No one knows how or what the founders would have wanted. All we know is that they valued a separation of church and state since that is what our Constitution actually says. Everything else is guesswork.
There is a massive problem with basing everything on what the Founders wanted. The Founders all died 200 years ago or more. Their beliefs are by definition conservative (conservatism means conserving past practices and traditions and laws) . If we only followed the Founders in a strict "originalist" way every law and every court decision would be conservative.
This is not the way to organize the modern world. The constitution should be a guideline.
There are libraries full of what they wrote where they expressed their intents many times over.. The actual debates of the constitutional convention were recorded by numerous scribes and condensed for record by James Madison...
Their intent in what they did is recorded in their own plain language wording if anyone actually cared to find out...
It's actually available to read online as well ....
It's only guesswork for those that don't care or know enough to care...
would it surprise you to know that they also wrote about exactly the belief you seem to hold dear?
They strongly counseled against those that would use the constitution as simply a "Guidline" and would be desirous of changing it as the whims of society or times desired... It's why they very deliberately made it VERY DIFFICULT to change
We also now that public school praying didn't become illegal until the early 1960's and clergy were prohibited from leading a prayer in public schools until 1992. Until then, you could have the separation and the prayer.
I have read what they wrote and nothing addressed public schools or separation of church and state to this extent, since public schools were fairly new then.
As for his feelings on the separation of church and state, he was ardently against the state being involved in any way with religion:
.
And implying that I am either ignorant of what he said, or I don't care what he said, is really beneath you.
It doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state.
The Constitution says, most importantly for this case, the government can't prevent the free exercise of religion. That's all that matters about what the "founders wanted," the text of the Constitution.
If you want to live in the world of two or three hundred years ago invent a time machine.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Exactly , nothing about "separation of church and state". That's an excerpt from a letter of a founder.
The school clearly violated the coach's right to exercise his religion. And the actions of a man praying by himself clearly don't establish a state religion.
So you would argue that a State can establish a religion, because what the Constitution says doesn't matter since the first amendment is old and and if the people want a state religion, it's their right to create one.
Nice paywall, can't read it cause of the paywall.. And who is the "HE" you are referring to? there were 40+ founders, they all had input...
And I implied nothing but what you choose to believe is on the wrong side of the issue... Which is an entirely permissible opinion on what you have written here... If your feeling offended by it, sorry...
So why did the school, a government entity, prohibit his free exercise thereof?
Uh, no.
simple solution. get some gas, put it in a sprayer, and kill the grass in the shape of a pentagram in the center of the 50 yard line. let the copy cat thumpers kneel in the middle of that and pray.
I know John. You believe the Constitution means something when it aligns with your preferences. But when it doesn't you claim it's meaningless and outdated.
All you do is try to have it both ways. Either support only the original text or dont. You cant have it both ways. Lets follow the original text and restrict gun ownership to those in a well regulated militia.
We cannot survive as a nation with the presumption that every Supreme Court decision must be conservative. It is ridiculous.
Then the school would be guilty of breaking the separation clause promoting an older version of Christianity.
The prefatory clause provides the rational for the operative clause, it doesn't limit or expand the scope of the second part.
having one on my condo front door kept most of the door to door thumper vermin away.
I like messing with the thumpers. I got an idea from a BBC show called Ms. Brown's Boys
Sean, that clause is the very foundation of separation of church and state, as Madison himself talked about it.
No it didn't. He could have prayed in anywhere privately but he did so on the field.
There was no paywall. Try again.
Well, I think you are on the wrong side of the issue, given 80 years and several conservative courts.
And yes it is offensive when you write:
Which one am I?
That clause is not in the Constitution. What's being litigated are the clauses in the Constitution.
It literally fired him for exercising his religion. That's not debatable. Certainly the dissent didn't claim that. The argument is whether a football coach praying in public constitutes the establishment of a state religion.
And which conservative courts would those be? The Supreme Court has been in existence for 233 years... The Supreme Court has been decidedly liberal since the 40's, (Roosevelt appointments) and became actively liberal in the mid 50's to stridently liberal in the mid 60's and maintained such, (wavering levels of liberality but still liberal) until two years ago...
And what about the other 153 years of courts? They don't count? (if they don't, it's a political belief tell)
Not a clue girl, only you can answer that...
No paywall so I have no idea why you are having problems.
The case that I presented here: 11.2.54 was an overwhelmingly conservative court. That was the case they heard and that was their decision.
Sean,
Jefferson himself came up with the term:
The expression “separation of church and state” can be traced to an 1802 letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of men affiliated with the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. In this letter he stated that religion was “a matter which lies solely between Man & his God,” and that government should not have any influence over opinions. Therefore, he asserted: “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.”
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24441#:~:text=The%20expression%20%E2%80%9Cseparation%20of%20church,Danbury%20Baptists%20Association%20of%20Connecticut.
Change seems to be only good, when you approve, not when precedent prevails.
We both know that either choice is an insult.
"Overwhelmingly Conservative"?
The Rehnquist court....
The Rehnquist Court thus began on September 26, 1986, with Scalia and eight members of the Burger Court : Rehnquist, William Brennan , Byron White , Thurgood Marshall , Harry Blackmun , Lewis Powell , John Paul Stevens , and Sandra Day O'Connor .
The Rehnquist Court is recognized as slightly less liberal than the Warren Court that preceded it... With the addition of Rehnquist, the court moved from a 6/3 liberal majority to a 5/4 liberal majority... When Reagan elevated Rehnquist to the Chief Justice position Scalia joined the court making it a 5/4 Conservative Court... With the loss of Powell Reagan put Kennedy on the court Kennedy was a swing vote making the court 4/4/1... Middle of the road court... Brennan & Marshal retired and the first Bush put Souter and Thomas on the court maintaining the basic status quo 4/4/1...
White and Blackmun retired allowing Clinton to put Ginsberg and Breyer on the court shifting the balance to decidedly liberal again 3/5/1
When Rehnquist died in '05 that allowed Bush II to put Roberts on the court which is when everyone agrees that the court started it's rightward swing...
Rehnquist was a solid conservative and presided over the most stable period in the courts history, but the Court was still decidedly liberal, in no way "Overwhelmingly Conservative"...
I am aware. That's why I wrote "That's an excerpt from a letter of a founder" in 12.1.11
What matters is what the Constitution says, not what Jefferson wrote in a letter.
And Jefferson wasn't even part of the convention... He was busy observing the French Revolution after his term as Minister to France.... WE sure could have used his genius for clear language at the convention...
So who first used it as dispositive in a case? And when?
In 2019 they refused to hear the case and sent it back down.
in part because the previous judge was too oral and did not provide enough opinion in writing.
JOSEPH A. KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT | FindLaw
The judgement was in 1992. In '92 the justices were picked by all Republican presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush and were:
Harry Blackmun
William Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
Clarence Thomas
That is one conservative court.
Those were the days when SCOTUS picks weren’t so partisan.
I would have to agree with you, but they were conservatives, just not ideologues.
Cause they were picked by Republicans? {chuckle}
The facts...
Blackmon; Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade... Hard Core Liberal
1/0 Liberal
Rehnquist; Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Rehnquist quickly established himself as the Burger Court's most conservative member. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Rehnquist to succeed retiring Chief Justice Warren Burger, and the Senate confirmed him.
1/1 Split
Stevens; Appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford, A registered Republican when appointed who throughout his life identified as a conservative, Stevens was considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court for the last 2/3rds of his time there.
2/1 Liberal
O'Connor; Appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, she was considered the swing vote for the Rehnquist Court.
2/1/1 Liberal
Scalia; Appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, He was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative wing. For catalyzing an originalist and textualist movement in American law, he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history.... We have him to thank for the Heller Decision..
2/2/1 Split
Kennedy; Appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy authored the majority opinion in several important cases, including four major gay rights cases, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges. He also co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A real Liberal champion..
3/2/1 Liberal
Souter; Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, he was expected to be a conservative justice. Within a few years of his appointment, Souter moved towards the ideological center... Last half of his term on the court he came to vote reliably with the Court's liberal wing.. Souter voted with the Court's liberal wing: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade; and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in Casey except the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that the Constitution protects the right to an abortion. A liberal champion..
4/2/1 Liberal
Thomas; Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, Supreme Court experts describe Thomas's jurisprudence as originalist, stressing the original meaning of the United States Constitution and statutes. He also supported ideas of natural law before becoming a judge. Thomas is widely held to be the Court's most conservative member.
4/3/1 Liberal
White; Appointed by President John F. Kennedy, Byron White A solid Conservative vote on the court, he wrote dissenting opinions in notable cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, and Roe v. Wade.
4/4/1 Split..
It wasn't a conservative court at all.... You referred to it as an "Ultra Conservative" court? I guess based upon who nominated them..
The well known facts say the complete opposite... And that was the closest the Rehnquist Court ever got to being a conservative court, shortly after Slick Willy gained power, he put Ginsberg and Breyer on the court replacing Blackmun and White shifting the court further left a reliable 5/3/1 Liberal....
Who ever gave you the idea that the Rehnquist court was ever a conservative court?
The fact that you think that all justices are all liberals says a lot more about politics today than who they were.
Rehnquist served as Chief Justice for nearly 19 years, making him the fourth-longest-serving Chief and the eighth-longest-serving Justice . He became an intellectual and social leader of the Rehnquist Court , earning respect even from the justices who frequently opposed his opinions. Though he remained a strong member of the conservative wing of the court, Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were often regarded as more conservative.
A registered Republican when appointed who throughout his life identified as a conservative, [5] Stevens was considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court at the time of his retirement. [6] [7]
O'Connor most frequently sided with the Court's conservative bloc.
After the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he was the swing vote on many of the Roberts Court 's 5–4 decisions.
Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court without a significant "paper trail" but was expected to be a conservative justice. Within a few years of his appointment, Souter moved towards the ideological center. He eventually came to vote reliably with the Court's liberal wing
The fact that you think that all justices are all liberals says a lot more about politics today than who they were.
I go by their record and the legal opinions of where they stood on the law at the time...
The court was split 50/50 with O'Conner being the swing vote in it's '92 iteration...
You used the term ultra conservative, and then postulated that eight of the justices were nominated by Republican presidents as the cause...
All factually wrong of course...
Your response to the facts...
...is more insult than reasonable...
In 1992 the time of that decision you quoted, the court was split 50/50 ideologically with one member they didn't really have a clue how she would vote..
That's not "Ultra Conservative" in anyone's book... (and it surprises me that it is in yours, but then this is the type of convo that completely reveals biases)
And as it stood at the time it was not 50/50. Granted O'Conner was a swing vote.
No, I didn't. Please quote me correctly. I said: "Overwhelmingly Conservative" meaning the make up of the court.
No, I said that the presidents who put them in the courts were conservatives. I was not factually wrong.
How is that an insult? I made a general comment about politics today and nothing about you in particular. You literally had almost everyone of those judges, some who are still on the court today as liberal or split, which even conservatives today would say is not correct.
Again, I never said ultra-conservative in regard to that court. Tig used that term. Please prove otherwise, and stop making this personal.
And I used it in regards to the current court. 6 conservative to 3 liberal is ultra-conservative. If Roberts votes with the liberals the vote will be 5 to 4. The conservatives still prevail.
And you are correct.
The Republicans in the US Senate havent represented a majority of the American people in the past 25 years.
The GOP presidential candidate has only won the popular vote ONCE in the past EIGHT elections. Yet we have a Supreme Court with 6 right wingers, including three recently appointed by the criminal Donald Trump. This will not be sustainable.
Exactly, the majority should form the tyranny, not the minority.
Why do you keep saying he was fired?
Now who really lost after 6 years of lawyering?
The citizens of Bremerton who paid higher school taxes
to fund this debacle.
Everybody except the lawyers.
That's a firing... (and it was characterized in the media as a firing and the District as a disciplinary termination)
Everyone but the lawyers....
It not all based on what the founders wanted, It's also based on 27 Amendments, the most recent being 1992.
What's scary is that three justices believe that the government can stop someone from praying by themselves just because it was on public property.
That's insane.
Most people who do things like this are just showing off and saying "Look At Me". Seems phoney
The guy did 20 years in the Marine Corps. Perhaps you could see your way to giving him the benefit of doubt.
Did they let him pray like that at formation?
Completely different thing.
First he was no longer obligated to follow military protocol as a civilian and second, free speech is limited while serving in the US military.
Was he being paid by taxpayers at time?
In both cases, yes.
Were his actions responsible to the UCMJ while teaching?
Did he take an oath to teach? Did that oath/rules assign limits to his constitutionally assured free speech?
Seems to be much ado over such a minor thing... a "fear' that the coach may be 'grooming' students?
How do people feel about the benediction before the 2020 Democrat National Convention given by Fr. James Martin?
Or the opening prayer (and daily prayers) before the House of Representatives starts their daily business?
Especially the second one there, it's definitely on government property and during government time. Yet the Democrats (who are the majority) in the House have not stopped this practice. If they accept it, why can't the rest of us?
I think they should do away with the opening and daily prayer business
Perhaps they should, as the Democrats are currently the majority in the House I think they could do it now if they wanted. I'll admit I don't know all the rules and procedures around this however.
But it does point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats when they came out lambasting the SCOTUS ruling for this when they are silent about their own prayers.
Yes it does. Believe me, I've had heartburn with some Democrats thru the years.
Is the DNC federally funded? If it is, then having a priest say a prayer is wrong. If it's funded by donations...I guess I don;t have much of a problem with that.
Now that the Court has weighed in, I still think what I thunk before. Legally, it’s fine and doesn’t appear to violate the Constitution. But as a Christian, I find it obnoxious. If he wants to pray, he can do it right there on the sideline where he’s standing, or in his office, in the car, or at home. No need to make a big show out of it.
I coached high school and college sports for several years and made plenty of prayers. Every one of them, I did on my own and I doubt that any player, parent, or fan ever had a clue that I did that.
It’s clearly more important to this coach that he be seen to be praying. He does it for his own glory, and not for God.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with praying where people can see you do it. But it is a whole other thing to make a special effort to be seen by as many people as possible.
I also find it pretty amazing that the same people who condemned Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee while being in his place on the sidelines, can also cheer on the coach who marches out to the middle of the field to make a show of praying. That’s worse than your garden variety hypocrisy where a person supports a thing they normally condemn. Here, the coach is making a much bigger spectacle of himself than the player who remains on the sidelines.
I've seen a lot of prayer circles in the middle of the field after games, at college and NFL levels. I don't let it bother me much, one (or many) people's choice to offer prayer. There are worse things they could do.
I don't believe, however, that you should compare this to Colin Kaepernick. He took a knee for a completely different reason and prayer had nothing to do with it.
As those that cheer Colin yet condemn this coach.
I wouldn’t do either one.
Well said Tacos.
Here's an idea!
Why don't we erect buildings with crosses on top of them and bells that ring in order to let the people who want to pray to some imaginary man on a cloud that now we be a good time to do it in one of those buildings?
That way the rest of us who don't want to be inconvenienced by people stopping in the middle of taxpayer financed football fields to pray to some imaginary man on a cloud can go on with our secular lives without having to put up with such nonsense.
Exactly how does that inconvenience you?
It offends me to witness people who want to lord it over the rest of us with their lord preen in public.
I’ve got news for you.
They aren’t the ones doing the lording.
You are.
It offends me that people are so easily offended and expect everyone else to bow to their delicate sensibilities instead of just looking the other way.
Commandeering a football field paid for by tax payer dollars to regularly perform a stunt of having a football team from a public HS pray to Jesus is lording it over the rest of us.
Keep your christian supremacy proselytizing coaches away from our kids.
with freedom of religion, none is as valid a choice as any other.
lol....the drama is entertaining.
I am am starting my own religion today: The Church of American Ass Worshippers.
We show our love of the lord above by showing our asses to the sky in order that they may be cleansed by the lord's grace and forgiveness. It is very important that people know what we are about so that they may join us in what we believe is the one true path toward salvation: showing our asses in public. For it is neither through faith nor works that one is deemed worthy of entrance to heaven but rather by having a clean ass.
We will soon be coming to a fifty-yard line near you. Bring your children.
So choose not to be offended.
Easy.
Kinda like commandeering a city street paid for by tax payer dollars to regularly perform a stunt of having entitled liberals shout at the sky while demanding adherence to their particular moral code?
Protesting is a civil right
As is the free exercise of religion. It's actually all covered in the same amendment.
How does this possibly bother you?
Did I say it did? I'm not the one having a hissy fit about "entitled liberals" exercising a right.
Yes, actually.
You said you would object...even if a Muslim teacher were leading Muslim students in prayers.
So it bothers you enough that you would object to it. Why?
Because teacher led prayer does not belong in public schools. That had been established. But apparently some teachers never agreed with it and finally got their way
So why do you object to people protesting on tax dollar streets?
Why not? Who does it harm? Why should a teacher be forced to waive their Constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion if it does not interfere with their job?
Should postal workers be forced to waive their rights, as well? How about EPA inspectors?
So if a devout science teacher prays during his lunch period, that's OK...but when a couple of his students ask "Mr. Ahmad, can we say prayers in here with you?"..he has to say no? Why?
At one point it was also "established" that black people could never be eligible for US citizenship.
I don't object unless they interfere with my rights in some way (blocking my street or denying my access to my bank or whatever). I personally think they're pathetic and stupid, but I would never want to deny them their right to go demonstrate.
And that's the point. A protesting group of liberals are marching around in a threatening manner loudly, often angrily, and sometimes violently demanding that everyone else adhere to their moral code...and you defend them. A praying group of Christians gets together for a quiet, positive, peaceful, non-demanding affirmation of their moral code, and you want to deny them their rights....guaranteed by the very same amendment.
and that, drills down to the root of the matter. Some folks just have delicate sensibilities these days and can’t even begin to grasp the age old concept of live and let live.
Pretty sad state of affairs to say the least.
Ilhan Omar lying to Americans about the ruling:
"The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in."
The misinformation campaign never stops
Unfortunately her constituents will believe her.
Some people would get mad if right after the Benediction in church somebody started throwing a football around
Some certainly would Charger, lol, thanks.