The court said, “The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”
The case deals with First Amendment protections of personal religious expression and the school system’s fears of being seen as endorsing a religion, which deals with the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause.” There are also questions about the rights of school employees vs. the duty of that employee not to coerce students, particularly on religious matters.
The majority said he was offering a “quiet prayer of thanks,” while the school system expressed concern about the visibility of the prayer at mid-field.
In the majority opinion, Gorsuch wrote, “He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton school district disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided. Both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the first amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s. Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”
Owen
Everything but tech support.
I am fine with his right to pray… as long as the school has the right to immediately fire him.
If your employer asks you not to do something while on the job, and you continue… they should be able to fire you. Whether that is prayer, burning the American flag, or flipping the bird to the opposing team after a game.
Do what you want on your time when you are not a representative of your employer.
Today, SCOTUS made it clear that prayer (in the fact-situation of his case) is NOT a firing offense in the United States of America.
Don’t like that? You can move. I hear there are plenty of dachas available outside Moscow these days.
>flipping the bird to the opposing team after a game.
If that were to happen, the best defense would be for the coach to say “That’s how I pray”
>If your employer asks you not to do something while on the job, and you continue… they should be able to fire you. Whether that is prayer, burning the American flag, or flipping the bird to the opposing team after a game.
I hope you realize how silly this reads… ? Are you also ok if you’re a maintenance electrician and your employer says “Don’t cut the power to the building, but go ahead and swap out the main breaker carefully”. And if you refuse you can be fired? Or you’re an operator at a casting plant and the foreman says “we don’t have time for your safety gear, run out there and do your job”?
What you simp liberals fail to understand, day after day, is the constitution is and needs to be upheld. There’s a process to change it. It’s hard, but that’s not an excuse to circumvent it. Circumvent – verb – Find a way around. You’re welcome for the definition Penguin, I’m trying to be more tolerant and nice to dummies. Thanks for patience while I learn and grow out of my personal biases. Any other words you didn’t grasp?
Jason, it’s “Trollquin”. Best not to feed it.
Jason, if those scenarios were to play out… you can very simply quit your job.
I hope this guy does NOT get his job back, I hope he finds some sort of religious school and coaches there instead. I am more concerned that students apparently felt peer pressure to pray with the coach for fear of losing playing time.
If this case was simply about his private prayers, it would be one thing. But the case was brought to the court because the coach overstepped his boundaries’ and incorporated motivational prayers into his team meetings and coaching. And towards the end of his tenure, he was holding VERY PUBLIC prayer sessions with crowds at the end. This isn’t just stopping some dude from bowing his head or taking a knee after a game. This is a guy how was holding public prayer sessions after games.
A little death metal on the speakers and hitting the sprinklers after the game would end that process anyway pretty quickly.
>This is a guy how was holding public prayer sessions after games.
Oh my god, I didn’t realize that… I retract my statement! How can this guy be allowed to stay in the country?
Oh wait. Anyone that didn’t want to participate could leave, could turn around, or could simply ignore it.
Ironic how lais·sez-faire your statement “you can very simply quit your job” is and yet you can’t apply it to something even more simple like walking away from a guy saying a prayer. No he needs to be fired immediately! You’re quite a puzzle jv. Oh wait Pengiun was referring to you when he was taking about personal bias… Got it.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Jason, the difference between my statements is one of separation of church and state. As well as the influence someone in authority has over kids. I am sorry that you need that exactly laid out for you.
For a group of people who constantly scream about teachers “indoctrinating” or “grooming” children, you don’t seem to mind when it comes to religion.
Again, I hope this guy gets a job at some religious school where he can feel freely about his public prayer.
>Pengiun was referring to you when he was taking about personal bias
The fact that you honestly&truly beleive as such speaks volumes and explains much.
But, on the off-chance that you don’t really mean what you just wrote, then that says even more…
>If your employer asks you not to do something while on the job, and you continue… they should be able to fire you. Whether that is prayer, burning the American flag, or flipping the bird to the opposing team after a game.
In fact, his employer just set the rules saying that it is okay to do what he was doing. So cool, case closed, JonnyV, he gets his job back.
The Government is his employer, and it just dictated to itself this is not a fireable offense. Surely you are not saying that the individual school has the right to fire against the rules set up by its owner, are you?
(Way too many commas:).
T, there is nothing saying that the guys gets his job back. The school itself has said as much. He has been away from the school for 6 years, if he hasn’t found a different job by now, I don’t know what to tell him. But I don’t believe there is anything that says they school needs to hire him back after they didn’t renew his contract (he wasn’t fired).
>Jason, the difference between my statements is one of separation of church and state.
You do realize that 6 Supreme Court Judges disagree with your differentiation right? That speaks volumes and explains much.
>For a group of people who constantly scream about teachers “indoctrinating” or “grooming” children, you don’t seem to mind when it comes to religion.
Yes, because sitting 3+ year olds down in a classroom in front of a teacher for day after day after taking attendance … is the same as a coach walking to the center of the field after a game and saying a prayer…
My goodness but your back must be sore from all the contorting you’re doing to support your personal bias which 6 out of 9 SC Justices disagree with. Let me guess, you agree with Witch Pelosi’s recent statement that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is “extremist”? Pelosi and Pengiun probably have the same lazy eye after a couple gin and tonics.
Jason, you conveniently keep leaving out the facts that he was using prayer in team meetings according to the reports. And again, I would have no issue if the prayer was a personal and private thing. But when you cross the line as to begin to make it public and a group experience, I feel like the line is crossed and you have issues of separation of church and state that we require.
I wouldn’t call the SC extremists, but they are definitely right wing (and apparently have no issue with their own perjury). We no longer have centrist judges.
>T, there is nothing saying that the guys gets his job back. The school itself has said as much. He has been away from the school for 6 years, if he hasn’t found a different job by now, I don’t know what to tell him. But I don’t believe there is anything that says they school needs to hire him back after they didn’t renew his contract (he wasn’t fired).
Okay, I did not know the direct facts on the situation you are talking about, but isn’t that dodging the point?
The Government has decided it is not illegal anymore. You said the school should get to fire a person saying a prayer in public and before this ruling, they could have. With this ruling, they cannot fire someone for prayer so long as it does not impinge upon the separation of C&S, the ’employer’ made a new rule saying so, no?
So now a school firing a teacher for generic prayer is in the wrong, correct?
>Jason, you conveniently keep leaving out the facts that he was using prayer in team meetings according to the reports.
I guess 6 of the 9 sitting US Supreme Court Justices did as well. Pretty heady company I keep.
>But when you cross the line as to begin to make it public and a group experience, I feel like the line is crossed
But you have no issue with whisking away something like an employer requiring disregard to personal safety with nothing more than “A guy can always quit if his employer did that”. Again I go back to “A guy can always choose to ignore a public or group prayer, if they’re a big enough person”.
>and you have issues of separation of church and state that we require.
That doesn’t mean what you think it means when talking about constitutional law. Yikes.
This is not difficult to comprehend.
You are still free to be offended by and express your disgust for any or all shades of religion. The difference is that the government is no longer allowed to subjugate the constitutional rights of others to protect your delicate sensibilities. Freedom from religion is once again your responsibility and yours alone.
>Freedom from religion is once again your responsibility and yours alone.
I simply cannot fathom how a living, breathing, working member of society cannot understand that simple concept. How does a person like this tie their shoes in the morning without injury???
>Jason, you conveniently keep leaving out the facts that he was using prayer in team meetings according to the reports. And again, I would have no issue if the prayer was a personal and private thing. But when you cross the line as to begin to make it public and a group experience, I feel like the line is crossed and you have issues of separation of church and state that we require.
This was not at issue in the case. The school requested he stop the group prayers on the field and in the locker room, and he did. He then began going to the center of the field after the team was in the locker room and praying privately to himself. It was for this action that he was fired, and it was this action that formed the entire basis of the case. The attorneys for the school admitted at oral argument that the public prayers, which he had stopped upon request, formed no part of the basis to fire him, and therefore weren’t at issue in the case.
>praying privately to himself
Is it really considered private if it is being done openly in public (literally on the 50 yard line) and a “crowd of supporters” join you?
And does it make any difference if that crowd includes people (students, parents of students, school employees who report to you) who have a vested interest in maintaining a good relationship with the teacher&coach?
>Is it really considered private if it is being done openly in public (literally on the 50 yard line) and a “crowd of supporters” join you?
Do you really need to ask that? Just a couple days aga, a majority of the sitting Supreme Court Justices said that it is.
> and a “crowd of supporters” join you?
Unless you think that the coach should chase off anyone who chose to join him, so he could pray all by himself. Privately doesn’t mean it has to also be solitary, try to understand the words you use before you use them, neh?
More meaningless drivel from Penny the Stain Collecting troll.
Yes, you can pray privately in public. It happens all the time. And it is common for people to go to a place that has some significance (twin towers site, church, graveyard, etc.) to pray privately. In this case, the coach is praying regarding the football game and goes to a place of significance to him to offer a personal prayer. That doesn’t make it inappropriate or unconstitutional – as the court ruled.
A majority of Justices also once said Roe v Wade meant abortions couldn’t be banned, but as we all know sometimes The Court gets things wrong….hence my questions.
Privately usually doesn’t mean “in public” tho, does it? What other overt acts can one commit privately while still in public?
synonyms for privately: alone. secretly. between us. clandestinely. covertly
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/privately
Yes, you can pray privately in public
If Coach was doing it privately, then how did anyone know what he was doing?
I certainly ain’t saying praying in public is unconstitutional, but I do agree with Jesus that it is inappropriate. However, this isn’t just about praying in public but more of a workplace issue. The school did not say he couldn’t pray at all while at work, they just didn’t want a spectacle made out of it. But Coach obviously wanted to put on a show for everyone to see, hence him going out to the middle of the football field, and that was the problem.
If my workplace won’t let me pray whenever&wherever I want to, then does that mean they are denying me a basic right? There are a lot of things that are appropriate and constitutional that a employer should still be allowed to put restrictions on….which is why I beleive the Supreme Court got this one wrong.
>synonyms for privately: alone. secretly. between us. clandestinely. covertly
See, you didn’t even understand what I was critiquing you on. Sharing the definition of a word would probably show understanding better that a list of synonyms – but I’m getting used to the disappointment I feel when seeing your posts.
>but as we all know sometimes The Court gets things wrong….hence my questions.
Very possible, but while any decision is in effect it is still law, no?
>Privately usually doesn’t mean “in public” tho, does it? What other overt acts can one commit privately while still in public?
Virtually every person who pays with a credit card out in public does it privately. Virtually every person who murmurs a comment under their breath or after they walk away from an encounter is saying something in private while in public. Literally millions of private actions happen in public every day. Most prayers that are said every day are private, whether in public or not.
>Yes, you can pray privately in public
>If Coach was doing it privately, then how did anyone know what he was doing?
One would have to grasp how one could pray privately while being in public, say praying while on the sidelines (or the 50 yard line) in full view of the stands, but not with a team audience or a microphone. If others of like mind join him, he is not unduly influencing them is he? So publicly, anyone looking could say he looked like he was praying, but only those closest might be able to tell what he said. If you had used Owen’s whole quote which you provided it might make more sense to you?
Any other questions?
I understand that you said I need to try to understand the word. I also understand that synonyms can help bring a greater understanding of what a word means and how it is used. It is also understood that you didn’t use the word “definition” in your original comment, and it is my understanding that there are many-many definitions of that word which wouldn’t even apply to this situation.
Furthermore, it is also understood that if you were having this discussion in good-faith then you would have provided a link to the particular definition you have in mind in order to move the convo along. Another understanding is that if you were truly interested in having an honest discussion then you would listed some other overt acts which can one commit privately while still in public.
So yeah, I understand a lot. But what I don’t understand is why you keep on doing something that makes you so disappointed and angry all the time? Perhaps if you ae able to gain a little self control in regards to reading/responding to those comments from people whom you know will upset you then you’ll be a much happier person overall.
>If my workplace won’t let me pray whenever&wherever I want to, then does that mean they are denying me a basic right? There are a lot of things that are appropriate and constitutional that a employer should still be allowed to put restrictions on….which is why I beleive the Supreme Court got this one wrong.
Actually, religious freedom has been a big thing in the courts over the last 50+ years and non-Christian belief suits, at least, have usually won. But that is beside the point isn’t it? The separation of C&S is not a question of basic rights, nor does it concern private business rules so your comparison is not applicable here. The only employer that is germane here is Government.
The details of the transaction itself may be private, but I see people whip out their credit card and use it all the time. Same thing with folks muttering something under their breath – the actual words themselves may not be known, but the action itself is not a private act…otherwise it would never have been noticed at all.
My apologies for not making it more clear, but I wasn’t referring to a private business….so I’ll re-phrase.
If a gov’t entity won’t let a worker pray whenever&wherever they want to, then does that mean they are denying ’em a basic right? Or do you beleive that reasonable restrictions should be allowed?
Again – the school did not flat-out ban the coach from praying at all…rather they said that while at work he needs to follow the guidelines provided while doing so.
Yet you have not seen their card number or heard what they said as you were meant not to. You are trying to convince us that the details of any action are not pertinent in determining what is private or public. Private businesses are not private, yet the aspect that they are not public businesses is understood by most. Public Government does things (often illegally) in private all the time yet they are ‘public Government’. Private things happen in public parks. Private does not even usually mean secret and public does not usually mean everyone knows about everything that happens in public.
By most any definition except your unreasonable one, the coach prayed privately. The crowd knew he was publicly praying but they were not privy to what was said as it was private. And as the separation of C&S was only ever meant to stop churches from coercing people to their views in public forums and the Government from persecuting or favoring any specific sect, I do not see an interpretation where the coach was in the wrong. He did it precisely to show the misuse that the establishment clause has been used in public schools, so I disagree. I think the court got it right.
> but the action itself is not a private act…otherwise it would never have been noticed at all.
And here’s why I said you don’t understand the word “private”. These arguments you’re making here lead me to believe you think it means something done solo without anyone seeing or knowing. While that certainly fits, it’s not the entirety of what “private” means. Maybe you need a bigger thesaurus? I can have a private conversation with someone at a bar, and the bartender can see it… it doesn’t mean its suddenly “Not Private”.
Merlin summed it up best, but he’s unfortunately been proven wrong
“This is not difficult to comprehend.”
>If a gov’t entity won’t let a worker pray whenever&wherever they want to, then does that mean they are denying ’em a basic right? Or do you beleive that reasonable restrictions should be allowed?
Again, the establishment clause is not really concerned with basic rights. It restricts Church and Government in different ways as explained above. IF the rule is doing more than the restrictions set forth in the clause, the rule is unreasonable. For example, it should never have been unreasonable for a school to have a religious based extracurricular activity so long as it voluntary, the definition of ‘extracurricular activity’. The Establishment Clause IS the set of reasonable restrictions, and of course I believe they should be allowed. So does just about everyone else here that I can think of.
>Again – the school did not flat-out ban the coach from praying at all…rather they said that while at work he needs to follow the guidelines provided while doing so.
I believe the school made rules that went beyond the Establishment Clause. Does that clarify that portion?
“The only thing I can recommend at this stage is a sense of humor, an ability to see things in their ridiculous and absurd dimensions, to laugh at others and at ourselves, a sense of irony regarding everything that calls out for parody in this world. In other words, I can only recommend perspective and distance.” ― Václav Havel
errp….pardon my fumble regarding the quote-block in my previous message.
No worries on stupid things like spelling, quote mistakes, etc as I often do them as well penQuin. If I can understand it, I treat it as right in a good discussion, and I agree that this is a good discussion. I am also not bothered a bit by a disagreement when we both have logical ideas behind them.
>Am curious to know what restrictions on an employee praying while at work would be considered reasonable by you…if any examples come to mind then please do share ’em.
Assuming public workers:
Anything that violates the Establishment Clause, any prayer that the person expects to be emulated or even heard by people under his ‘control’ such as teacher to student or a politician to his staff and the varied workers he comes in contact with.
Any prayer that takes away actual business time. For instance, a teacher can pray away between classes on school grounds, but even privately (my definition above) it is not appropriate while a class is in session or even just a ‘teaching opportunity’ like a tutorial between classes.
I do think that prayers with a team are inappropriate as I don’t really trust some teachers not to push it(favor ‘believers’ over non-believers for instance).
An extra curricular with a religious theme is perfectly fine during that particular activity, but it is not fine as an add on to a different extracurricular especially any team activity or moved into a working classroom or other activity, the ole’ bait and switch.
I think talking about prayer and religion is important in school and we use to trust teachers to be impartial. It is a very important historical subject to put in context, imo. How can you have a chapter on the crusades in history without it? My nieces in the WB Schools had barely even heard of the crusades, it was just avoided in history class.
For a group of people who constantly scream about teachers “indoctrinating” or “grooming” children, you don’t seem to mind when it comes to religion.
PUshing transvestitism or setting up children for sex-with-the-teacher (or whoever) is not similar to praying.
But then, distinctions are lousy bumper-stickers.
The only employer that is germane here is Government.
And the First Amendment is clear: the Government may not restrict religious practice within reasonable bounds. Praying in the middle of a football field as most fans and players are leaving? Reasonable.