Today the SCOTUS issued a decision that will allow public school coaches and teachers to bully and intimidate students into participating in prayers against their will. This is what passes for “freedom of religion” in the imperium per iudices of the United States.
I wrote about Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in April, when the Court heard the case. See SCOTUS, Culture Warriors, and School Prayer for background.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, and Ian Millhiser writes at Vox that Gorsuch misrepresented the facts of the case. (This is the pattern with this Court; if the facts don’t support how you want to rule, then change the facts.)
Moreover, because Gorsuch’s opinion relies so heavily on false facts, the Court does not actually decide what the Constitution has to say about a coach who ostentatiously prays in the presence of students and the public. Instead, it decides a fabricated case about a coach who merely engaged in “private” and “quiet” prayer. …
… In the real case that was actually before the Supreme Court, Coach Kennedy incorporated “motivational” prayers into his coaching. Eventually, these prayers matured into public, after-game sessions, where both Kennedy’s players and players on the other team would kneel around Kennedy as he held up helmets from both teams and led students in prayer.
After games, Kennedy would also walk out to the 50-yard line, where he would kneel and pray in front of students and spectators. Initially, he did so alone, but after a few games students started to join him — eventually, a majority of his players did so. One parent complained to the school district that his son “felt compelled to participate,” despite being an atheist, because the student feared “he wouldn’t get to play as much if he didn’t participate.”
See A coach coerced students to pray, and the Supreme Court just said it was OK by Paul Peterson, father of four former Bremerton High School students.
It’s not the job of coaches or teachers to lead schoolchildren in prayer or coerce them, whether explicitly or implicitly, to join in religious activities. Students and their families, not public school employees, get to decide their religious practices and beliefs. Religious indoctrination is not the instruction that I or the parents I know want the public school involved in.
Well, yes. The issue was never that the coach was seen saying prayers on the 50 yard line; it was that team members were coerced into joining the prayers. And some of the players felt uncomfortable with this, because the prayers didn’t reflect their religious views.
“There is no indication in the record,” Gorsuch wrote, “that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension.” Perhaps the Justice overlooked the amicus brief joined by parents like Paul Peterson, who felt that Kennedy’s prayers were coercive and out of bounds. Mark Joseph Stern reported,
The plaintiff’s lawyers insist that he was fired from his job as a football coach for engaging in “quiet, private prayer” at the 50-yard line after games. The extensive record developed in the district court tells a different story. It demonstrates that Kennedy formed prayer circles with team members after each game, leading the students in audible Christian prayer while in the midst of his formal duties. When the school district asked him to pray privately instead, he claimed he had been persecuted for his religious exercise.
Kennedy hired far-right lawyers who threatened legal action against the school district, transforming the postgame ritual into a media spectacle. Eventually, students began racing onto the field to join the prayer circle, creating a 500-person stampede that injured multiple people. Put simply, there was nothing “quiet” or “private” about Kennedy’s proselytization. (Also, he wasn’t fired; he was placed on paid leave.)
Not every member of the football team shared their coach’s Christian faith. But virtually all of them felt compelled to participate. Team members later explained that praying with Kennedy was “expected.” The coach even encouraged his own players to recruit their opponents and their coaches into the prayer circle. Some students joined in only because they feared they “wouldn’t get to play as much” if they declined, or because “they did not wish to separate themselves from the team.”
One member of the football team during Kennedy’s tenure, who came forward under a pseudonym for fear of retaliation, attested that he refused to bow his head because Kennedy’s prayers did not align with his own beliefs. He was then “persecuted” for failing to conform, treated poorly by the coaches and permitted to play only because of his talent on the field. The experience still haunts him, as well as others who felt queasy about the indoctrination they faced at school. These players, the student said, “would rather forget about that time of their life.”
Kennedy hired far-right lawyers who threatened legal action against the school district, transforming the postgame ritual into a media spectacle. Eventually, students began racing onto the field to join the prayer circle, creating a 500-person stampede that injured multiple people. Put simply, there was nothing “quiet” or “private” about Kennedy’s proselytization. (Also, he wasn’t fired; he was placed on paid leave.)
Not every member of the football team shared their coach’s Christian faith. But virtually all of them felt compelled to participate. Team members later explained that praying with Kennedy was “expected.” The coach even encouraged his own players to recruit their opponents and their coaches into the prayer circle. Some students joined in only because they feared they “wouldn’t get to play as much” if they declined, or because “they did not wish to separate themselves from the team.”
Christian nationalism, here we come.
Christian nationalism, here we come.
White Christian Nationalism, here we have become?
The Roberts and Alito Courts will control the Supreme Court for at least the next 15-20 years. Roberts and Alito were nominated by Little George Bush. The 3 horsemen of the apocalypse were nominated by tRump. ALL were vetted by the Federalist Society to assure that 'corporate persons' will be taken care of and by the Heritage Foundation to assure that christian religious 'values' (dogma) will be in control of setting theological norms for society.
Seventy three years old and every day regretting that I have been a part of what we are leaving our children and grand-children and all future generations. I don't see the political will to reverse (or even slow down now that Alito has seized control) the implementation of permanent 'tyranny of the minority'. I don't see the political will to reverse the increases in damage to the environment and climate. I see a bleak future for the planet's inhabitants.
If someone could provide reason for optimism, I would appreciate it.
“There is no indication in the record,” Gorsuch wrote, “that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension.” There certainly weren't any concerns expressed about quiet, postgame prayers because there weren't any quiet, postgame prayers!
Here's a decision that got away from Clarence fulfilling his Christian agenda. I guess Clarence thought that he and his fellow dominionists were all of one accord and they could run the table.
21-802 Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center (06/27/2022) (supremecourt.gov)
I believe Judge Gorsuch used poetic licence when he was writing his opinion on this one.
The basic story is that this "Christian" football coach was openly and flagrantly proselytizing.
He was asked to stop. But this idiot is a special idiot! A very special "Christian" idiot, so you know that as a self-proclaimed "Christian Warrior" he's got to swing his religion in everyone's face, kind of like invading Bronze Age warrior's did their swords when marching through the conquered town's population.
Gorsuch "Andy Griffith Showed" reality.
Instead of paying attention to what people said about "Coach," he believed "Coach's" word, and not the dissenting multitudes.
It's said that Andy Griffith grew-up in Mount Airy, NC. And it's said that on his great show, the town of Mayberry was based on that town.
Andy Griffith homogenized the people he grew-up around. He took away all of their rough stuff, and turned the characters into examples of clean-living Americans. Americans living in an Americana dreamscape.
Now, if you remember the show, no one but Otis was a drunk. A funny, endearing drunk. A real-life Otis could have gotten hurt, or died in a car wreck, maybe accidentally killed someone. Or maybe dabble in using drugs. And then to afford more booze and drugs, decided to deal some drugs.
Floyd, the barber, was a nice older man who liked to talk a lot. But he wasn't a barber who did back alley abortions. Or "the demon barber on Main Street."
All of the characters in Mayberry were idealized, and stripped of humanity – at least until a show's episode needed some of their cornpone bullshit and charm.
Gorsuch took a religious asshole pushing his faith on kids, and turned him into a victim of scorn and derision.
Statistically, the Mount Airy of Griffith's youth had to have criminals. Had to have drugs. Had to have at least one child molestor (you don't have to be a Catholic priest to be a child molstor).
Andy Griffith used a soft-focus filter on his memories
Gorsuch is a SC Judge. He shouldn't try to soft-focus reality.
But he is.
Sad.
Off topic, but I've got to get this out. Regarding the announcement for tomorrow's unscheduled J6 committee hearing where the committee has some 'new' evidence and a previously unknown witness to provide testimony.
I want to go on the record as being the first to predict that Jeffery Clark has struck a deal to gain immunity by rolling over and testifying against Trump, Eastman, and whatever names he can provide to avoid a stretch in the big house. The J6 committee way too serious to engage in any kind of theatrics to boost ratings by drawing people in with some cheap stunt that won't deliver. They've got something big in the works. To my mind the hearing #5 make it abundantly clear that Clark was slated to be Trump's patsy. Just used and discarded. And Clark knows it. I think he's going to be wisely following in the footsteps of Sammy The Bull and Joe Valachi.
It would only make sense that Clark's counsel would work with the committee to secure a deal to provide the maximum amount of evidence against multiple people in exchange for letting a stooge avoid the full weight of his crime. We'll see what tomorrow brings. When you're on a sinking ship it never hurts to put a life jacket on.
Has the committee already interviewed him under oath in a disposition?
I doubt that they would have a 'surprise' witness that they do not fully know what his testimony would be.
It seems I blew that prediction. Oh, well. I still firmly believe that Clark is going to cave. Simply by the fact that of all the characters involved in the plot Clark is the one who was lured in with the expectation of becoming acting Attorney General. When Trump quashed that plan and decided to go anther route it left Clark holding the bag for a potencial 20 year sentence for something that Trump didn't deliver on. Clark now has every incentive to cooperate with the investigators to get the slime of Trump's scheme off of him the best he can. He aslo holds the piece of the puzzle that can irrefutably connect Trump to Rep. Banks and others in the plot to overthrow the election. That's why I believe Clark is the weakest link.
He aslo holds the piece of the puzzle that can irrefutably connect Trump to Rep. Banks and others in the plot to overthrow the election.
I erroneously mentioned Rep. Banks when the person I intended to mention was actually Rep. Perry. It was Perry (of pardon seeking fame) who introduced Clark to Trump. The introduction probably went like this: Mr President, I've found the perfect stooge to implement your plan to overthrow the election. His name is Jeffrey Clark and he has the same zeal and emotional need to serve your cause as Cesar Sayoc. Please consider giving him the time of day.
I think we should not be surprised at the cases of the past few weeks and the punches against all us inthese decisions. All authoritarian all the time. A specific white nationalist fundamentalist minority rule. These cases were "groomed" for this court just as these justices were "groomed" for this moment. Maybe we need to closely examine law schools and institutions that have produced this anti majoritarian branch of government. We have been gamed.
Fighting this will take organization planning and of course funding.
Today the court ruled to stop a house district in Louisiana being created for a black majority. Another antidemocratic move. So many i am beginning to lose count.