Supreme Court rules for former coach in public school prayer case

When the other school believes it's a school sanctioned prayer, you're doing something incorrectly. It's clear that the appearance is that the school system is sanctioning this, which they are not allowed to do.

 

I still think they are different levels of degree. If people treated their religion like a normal interest/activity, then it wouldn't be an issue. You're probably not going to discriminate someone because they didn't join your bookreading club. However, when someone believes a nonbeliever is going to hell, or you have people willing to attack mosques/synagogues/other religions, then it's not really that farfetched to think that at least some favoritism or discrimination could occur for not joining the prayer circle. Historically, it's not uncommon for people of one religion to view people of other religions as less than human. By making this so public, the coach has already indicated how important religion is to him, and in another way also allows him to clearly identify which of his players are christian, which is something he might not have known before starting the prayer circle. I don't think it's really a stretch to foresee potential favoritism regardless of whether it is a conscious or unconscious bias. Sometimes the potential for abuse should be enough to avoid the situation, whether or not there is actual abuse.

For example, at the company I work for, my coworker's wife was promoted to be our boss' boss. This meant that my coworker needed to transfer to another department or leave the company to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

 

Why? It's healthy, both physically and mentally.

 

It's also dangerous on a child's body - a lot of those poses - even basic ones, can really do a lot of harm. They are kids, they don't know their limits and yeah, I would say unless they have one-on-one supervision, don't do it.

 

Not if you don't go extreme. Any physical activity can be dangerous if you go extreme. AAP recommends Yoga for children.

 

this is helpful


https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/03/no-offense-but-its-just-a-prayer/

excerpt:

No Offense, But It's Just A Prayer
by Josh Blackman

In American Legion, Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. Gorsuch challenged the entire basis of Article III standing for Establishment Clause cases. In Gorsuch's view, merely taking "offense" at some public display of religion was insufficient to establish an Article III injury. (I too have long questioned standing in cases like Van Orden v. Perry.) Gorsuch wrote:

In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily found. Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an "offended viewer" may "avert his eyes," Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (1975), or pursue a political solution. Today's decision represents a welcome step toward restoring this Court's recognition of these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.​

If this passage is correct, then why would someone suffering "offense" from a public display have a constitutional injury? Van Orden could have just have averted his eyes at the Ten Commandments display. (And don't get me started on Flast v. Cohen.)

At the time, Gorsuch's opinion garnered only two votes. Now, a majority of the Court implicitly endorsed Gorsuch's reasoning. Kennedy v. Bremerton includes this passage:

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy's proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is "part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society," a trait of character essential to "a tolerant citizenry." Lee. This Court has long recognized as well that "secondary school students are mature enough … to understand that a school does not endorse," let alone coerce them to participate in, "speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis." Mergens. Of course, some will take offense to certain forms of speech or prayer they are sure to encounter in a society where those activities enjoy such robust constitutional protection. But "[o]ffense … does not equate to coercion." Town of Greece.​

If offense is not sufficient to trigger coercion, then what is the basis for an Article III injury? Moreover, the Court has sent a clear message: unless there is direct coercion, get over prayer in public. The government's attempt to avoid a person from feeling "offense" is not sufficient to violate the coach's Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.
​

more at the link

 

suck/sucks

 

Free Exercise as a Social Good
The Supreme Court's religion jurisprudence has for too long treated religion as a public vice. Kennedy v. Bremerton begins to reconsider that.

https://lawliberty.org/free-exercise-as-a-social-good/

excerpt:

In a country in which nude dancing, flag burning, p*rnography, and wearing obscenity-emblazoned jackets in public are constitutionally protected expression, does a devout Christian high school football coach have a constitutional right to briefly pray at midfield after the game?

While such a question might have seemed absurd on its face to titans in the history of American football in their days, from Teddy Roosevelt and Vince Lombardi, to Bobby Bowden and Kurt Warner, we now know that the answer is yes. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Supreme Court’s rejection of strict separationism is an important turning point in its religion clause jurisprudence, putting it on a path toward coherence, and an important victory for free speech rights of government employees. It also sets forth premises that may ultimately upend its erroneous coercion precedents.
​

more

 

In the eyes of many, many conservatives...

Free expression of a coach praying - Good

Free expression of Colin Kaepernick kneeling during anthem - Bad

 

lol, so you're saying what about Colin Kaepernick

 

I'm saying that many, many conservatives think Kaepernick (and others) freely expressing is bad. That seems pretty obvious. Yet, they think that a coach freely expressing his Christianity is good.

I'd love to see a Muslim coach bring out his prayer mat and express himself on a Friday night in Texas.

 

on the topic of football and religion:

“He’s a Public Employee. Fire his A**”: Critics Call for Harbaugh to be Canned for Coming Out as Pro-Life

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/...baugh-to-be-fired-for-coming-out-as-pro-life/

 

People are idiots.

 

on that you and I are in agreement

 

But they can get a sex change tho...

 

Actually they can not. You might want to do your homework on that one.