4 ms·

The Supreme Court Has Ushered in a New Era of Religion at School

9 points by samizdis 4y ago

haspoken 4y ago
https://archive.ph/85XmX https://archive.ph/85XmX
AinderS 4y ago
This article is extremely confused, perhaps reflecting the judicial confusion in this matter. For example: > Chief Justice Warren Burger defined a three-prong standard: Any school law had to have a primarily secular purpose, it couldn’t promote or inhibit religion, and, most famously, it had to avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.” [..] Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that only “discrimination” against religion could explain the attempt to stop a coach from his “brief, quiet, personal religious observance.” He explicitly rejected the Lemon test, invoking instead the vision of public religion held by the Founding Fathers. Why did he have to reject the test? It seems to me that "any school law [..] couldn't promote or inhibit religion" would mean that teachers must be allowed to pray. How can one argue that forbidding their personal prayer (not compelling students to pray) is not "inhibiting religion"? View differently, prayer is just another form of speech, and forbidding it is no different than forbidding teachers from expressing any other opinion, whether it falls under "religion" or not. One could argue the 1st amendment in fact requires that religious speech is treated no different than other speech. Then there is this part: > the Carson decision will result in taxpayers being forced to pay for schools that strive to instill controversial religious ideas into students—a far greater offense to religious liberty than allowing prayer in school. [..] taxpayers will be required to pay for religious ideas they consider abhorrent. Taking a moment to recover from the usually right-wing rhetoric "taxpayers forced to pay for thing they dislike" coming from the Atlantic, how does one get "offense to religious liberty" from parents being able to choose their children's upbringing? Is it then an offense to political liberty if taxpayers are forced to pay for schools instilling political ideas they dislike? It seems schools are free to instill any kind of ideals they like into students, so long as they don't call them "religion". It takes impressive mental gymnastics to not consider that discrimination against religion.
prirun 4y ago
I am not a religious person (agnostic), and especially not keen on organized religion. From the SC decision: "Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach in the Bremerton School District after he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet personal prayer." "Here, no one questions that Mr. Kennedy seeks to engage in a sin- cerely motivated religious exercise involving giving “thanks through prayer” briefly “on the playing field” at the conclusion of each game he coaches. App. 168, 171. The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015. In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s brief prayer, the District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor gen- erally applicable. By its own admission, the District sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious char- acter. Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District’s unques- tioned “object.” The District explained that it could not allow an on- duty employee to engage in religious conduct even though it allowed other on-duty employees to engage in personal secular conduct." I agree a coach has a right to offer a personal prayer whenever he wants if he does not engage students (or fans IMO) in the practice. But to me there is some gray area here too: 1. If he wanted to offer a personal prayer of thanks, why do it midfield? That's not very personal. 2. He didn't do it after people were gone, or it wouldn't have been an issue. 3. If he did this while all the fans were watching, that seems to be a public display of religion at a school function by a school employee, not a "quiet personal prayer".
bediger4000 4y ago
My advice about public prayer: get a bible concordance, and look up all the times Jesus prayed. Are any of them in public? No. This is a culture war issue, ginned up by conservatives, probably so that national-level conservatives can fundraise off it.

9 points by samizdis 4y ago

https://archive.ph/85XmX https://archive.ph/85XmX

This article is extremely confused, perhaps reflecting the judicial confusion in this matter. For example: > Chief Justice Warren Burger defined a three-prong standard: Any school law had to have a primarily secular purpose, it couldn’t promote or inhibit religion, and, most famously, it had to avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.” [..] Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that only “discrimination” against religion could explain the attempt to stop a coach from his “brief, quiet, personal religious observance.” He explicitly rejected the Lemon test, invoking instead the vision of public religion held by the Founding Fathers. Why did he have to reject the test? It seems to me that "any school law [..] couldn't promote or inhibit religion" would mean that teachers must be allowed to pray. How can one argue that forbidding their personal prayer (not compelling students to pray) is not "inhibiting religion"? View differently, prayer is just another form of speech, and forbidding it is no different than forbidding teachers from expressing any other opinion, whether it falls under "religion" or not. One could argue the 1st amendment in fact requires that religious speech is treated no different than other speech. Then there is this part: > the Carson decision will result in taxpayers being forced to pay for schools that strive to instill controversial religious ideas into students—a far greater offense to religious liberty than allowing prayer in school. [..] taxpayers will be required to pay for religious ideas they consider abhorrent. Taking a moment to recover from the usually right-wing rhetoric "taxpayers forced to pay for thing they dislike" coming from the Atlantic, how does one get "offense to religious liberty" from parents being able to choose their children's upbringing? Is it then an offense to political liberty if taxpayers are forced to pay for schools instilling political ideas they dislike? It seems schools are free to instill any kind of ideals they like into students, so long as they don't call them "religion". It takes impressive mental gymnastics to not consider that discrimination against religion.

prirun 4y ago

I am not a religious person (agnostic), and especially not keen on organized religion. From the SC decision: "Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach in the Bremerton School District after he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet personal prayer." "Here, no one questions that Mr. Kennedy seeks to engage in a sin- cerely motivated religious exercise involving giving “thanks through prayer” briefly “on the playing field” at the conclusion of each game he coaches. App. 168, 171. The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015. In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s brief prayer, the District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor gen- erally applicable. By its own admission, the District sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious char- acter. Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District’s unques- tioned “object.” The District explained that it could not allow an on- duty employee to engage in religious conduct even though it allowed other on-duty employees to engage in personal secular conduct." I agree a coach has a right to offer a personal prayer whenever he wants if he does not engage students (or fans IMO) in the practice. But to me there is some gray area here too: 1. If he wanted to offer a personal prayer of thanks, why do it midfield? That's not very personal. 2. He didn't do it after people were gone, or it wouldn't have been an issue. 3. If he did this while all the fans were watching, that seems to be a public display of religion at a school function by a school employee, not a "quiet personal prayer".

bediger4000 4y ago

My advice about public prayer: get a bible concordance, and look up all the times Jesus prayed. Are any of them in public? No. This is a culture war issue, ginned up by conservatives, probably so that national-level conservatives can fundraise off it.