Kennedy Vs Bremerton Ruling

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
38,264
10,925
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#62
She is obviously an idiot....or maybe more likely just pandering for idiots votes.
I would love to see the outrage if Ilhan Omar went out and said that Muslim Clerics should be directing the Government.

Just keep casually dismissing the erosion of the barrier between Church and state..because it is your brand of Church...for now

At some point it will NOT be Christianity and they will point back to THESE EVENTS today to make and stake their claim in America.

My pastor once told me he fully believed that the story of Jesus will be illegal at some point in my lifetime. So I got the story of Jesus tattooed on my skin in a picture (Luthers Rose) so if anyone ask about my tat....I can share the message of Jesus Christ with them.....and also did it as a contingency if my Pastor was right...If the story of Jesus does become illegal, I will still have the ability to tell it via the tapestry of my skin.

I just didn't realize it was going to be crazy Hypocritical GOP politicians that would drive that story to be illegal by trying their best to force it on everyone.
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,363
41,813
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#63
He didn't say ONLY to pray in private but he gave us some pretty clear instructions that in order to not be a hypocrite, maybe it is something we should choose.


Matthew 6:6 ESV
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:5-6 ESV
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-34 ESV
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...
Matthew 6:5 ESV
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.

Synagogue prayers are not in public. This is like the guy who always volunteers to pray for the potluck dinner and then takes 10 minutes and the food gets cold. The point Jesus is making is to use your prayers to communicate with the Father rather than to communicate your piety to other people. He is NOT making a statement against praying in public, he saying don't be a hypocrite when you are praying.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,070
17,423
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#64
What if this was the FMA...Fellowship of Muslim Athletes. How do you think a Christian athlete would feel trying to fit in?
Obviously any minority group might feel they have trouble fitting in with the majority, be it religious, cultural or something else. But as long as they aren't forced to participate and are allowed to have the same type of organizations for their beliefs, isn't that fair?

And yes I realize their are a lot of closed minded hypocritical social conservatives out there who would have a problem with FMA. Those people are idiots.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,907
2,553
1,743
#65
So the difference is the length of time they engage in it? It's not too bad of a 1st amendment violation as long as it doesn't last very long?
Time is certainly a factor for me. I was responding to the claim on infringing on rights.
The city council prayer earlier was called by @okstate987 to be "virtue signaling". I don't disagree with that label in some case --- but 15-20 seconds of virtue signaling is not that big of deal to me. I would prefer there not be a prayer at a city council meeting, but it is your choice to feel victimized or not.

There is a wide gulf between a whole church service and a short prayer --- not only in amount of time, but purpose. To claim otherwise is....weird to me --- and seemingly searching for a reason to be upset. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, before each and every basketball game I played while in high school, our coach would lead us in the Lord's Prayer. Although I am not personally religious, I never thought my rights were infringed or that I was forced to do something.

I think this specific case is a great example. Evidence shows that this coach was doing this private prayer for 7 years without people apparently noticing. It wasn't until a rival coach informed administration that he thought it was great they allowed the coach to pray. Sure seems apparent to me that he was not forcing people to join him in prayer and that, at least prior to administration being informed, he was doing his prayer in a solemn way.

Maybe, just maybe, we should respect each other and when actions and events don't effect us ---- just let people live like they want to live?

In your question above and from your previous post, a 15-20 second prayer doesn't effect me or cause an inconvenience ---- sitting through a "whole church service" would be an inconvenience.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,868
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
#66
She is obviously an idiot....or maybe more likely just pandering for idiots votes.
I was thinking the same thing. Which is worse? Her? Or the pastor who gave her his pulpit to preach something other than the gospel and baptize the Christian faith into the service of a political party right there in a house of worship? I'm pretty sure I know how the Scriptures would answer that question.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,491
6,980
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#67
I was thinking the same thing. Which is worse? Her? Or the pastor who gave her his pulpit to preach something other than the gospel and baptize the Christian faith into the service of a political party right there in a house of worship? I'm pretty sure I know how the Scriptures would answer that question.
I didn't even click the link to see that she did this AT a church service... Politics shouldn't be preached during church and DEFINITELY not from the mouth of a politician... I thought there was a tie between that and churches tax exempt status?? (I very well could be misinformed here.)
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,070
17,423
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#68
I was thinking the same thing. Which is worse? Her? Or the pastor who gave her his pulpit to preach something other than the gospel and baptize the Christian faith into the service of a political party right there in a house of worship? I'm pretty sure I know how the Scriptures would answer that question.
I would say the pastor is worse. Maybe I just expect better from pastors than I do politicians.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,868
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
#69
I didn't even click the link to see that she did this AT a church service... Politics shouldn't be preached during church and DEFINITELY not from the mouth of a politician... I thought there was a tie between that and churches tax exempt status?? (I very well could be misinformed here.)
There is, but it has rarely ever been prosecuted. The Johnson Amendment, which is part of the tax code.

Although I'm no expert on it, I think it may be more narrowly written and apply not so much to broader speech such as this (as historically misguided as it may be!), but blatant endorsement or opposition of specific candidates (which has certainly been a thing too).

Tax code or not, I guess I'm just one of those old fashioned Christians who thought our job in the church is to teach Jesus for the salvation of the world. Not to become foot soldiers in someone else's culture war.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,868
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
#70
I would say the pastor is worse. Maybe I just expect better from pastors than I do politicians.
What's kind of ironic is that people bash denominations, etc. as old fashioned, corrupt, etc. And I'll acknowledge that there's some level of truth to it. But as a pastor within a denomination, I'm accountable to multiple governing bodies, and there's no way I could get away with something like this happening in the church I serve.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,624
5,401
1,743
Somewhere
#73
Time is certainly a factor for me. I was responding to the claim on infringing on rights.
The city council prayer earlier was called by @okstate987 to be "virtue signaling". I don't disagree with that label in some case --- but 15-20 seconds of virtue signaling is not that big of deal to me. I would prefer there not be a prayer at a city council meeting, but it is your choice to feel victimized or not.

There is a wide gulf between a whole church service and a short prayer --- not only in amount of time, but purpose. To claim otherwise is....weird to me --- and seemingly searching for a reason to be upset. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, before each and every basketball game I played while in high school, our coach would lead us in the Lord's Prayer. Although I am not personally religious, I never thought my rights were infringed or that I was forced to do something.

I think this specific case is a great example. Evidence shows that this coach was doing this private prayer for 7 years without people apparently noticing. It wasn't until a rival coach informed administration that he thought it was great they allowed the coach to pray. Sure seems apparent to me that he was not forcing people to join him in prayer and that, at least prior to administration being informed, he was doing his prayer in a solemn way.

Maybe, just maybe, we should respect each other and when actions and events don't effect us ---- just let people live like they want to live?

In your question above and from your previous post, a 15-20 second prayer doesn't effect me or cause an inconvenience ---- sitting through a "whole church service" would be an inconvenience.
Kneeling during the national anthem was seen by you as a big deal, and that was 15 to 20 seconds of what you would call virtue signaling.

So basically it doesnt matter if it is constiutional or inappropriate, only if you are bothered by it or not. Got it.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,907
2,553
1,743
#74
Kneeling during the national anthem was seen by you as a big deal, and that was 15 to 20 seconds of what you would call virtue signaling.

So basically it doesnt matter if it is constiutional or inappropriate, only if you are bothered by it or not. Got it.
We can debate as much as you want — that is what discussion boards are for.

But don’t make up stuff that I never stated or posted. Show me one time that I ever stated that kneeling should not be allowed.

However, that is an interesting, although not direct comparison. An action that most would deem as unity vs an action that most would deem as divisive. And the minority views of each are opposite the above statement. You may have inadvertently just provided a small reason, although not legal argument, of why something should be allowed. We dont have to support something, and perhaps we don’t like it, but personal actions that don’t disrupt daily lives should, for the most part, be permitted to continue.
 
Last edited:

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,726
8,032
1,743
#75
Thought this was a pretty decent read on the subject...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muslims-jews-supreme-court-side-090033436.html

We are Muslims and Jews. We needed the Supreme Court to side with coach's Christian prayer.

Howard Slugh, Gregory Dolin and Ismail Royer
Mon, June 27, 2022 at 9:24 AM


Fouad Zaban is head coach of the Fordson High School football team in Dearborn, Michigan. He's a Muslim, like most of his team. If a player offered him a drink of water during Ramadan, the coach would have to decline. If the student asked why, he would explain that he is fasting because of his faith.
Would this innocent interaction violate the Constitution? Maybe, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is correct. (The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vindicated the right of religious Americans to participate in public life while maintaining their faith.)
According to the 9th Circuit ruling, any public display of religion by a public school employee within the view of his students at or near school functions is constitutionally suspect. We, as representatives of Muslim and Jewish organizations, hope the Supreme Court rejects the 9th Circuit's restrictive view and vindicates the right of religious Americans to participate in public life while maintaining their faith.

Fouad Zaban, head football coach at Fordson High School in Dearborn, Mich., and his family were featured in a 2011 episode of TLC's reality TV series "All-American Muslim."

Last year, the 9th Circuit ruled that the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion required a Seattle-area public school to punish its football coach, Joseph Kennedy, after he knelt on the 50-yard line, bowed his head, closed his eyes "and prayed a brief, silent prayer." He defied the school's long-running campaign to silence his public displays of faith. The school ultimately fired him.

Kennedy appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his suspension from the school violated his rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
The lower court reasoned that Kennedy's quiet prayer might signal that the public school had unconstitutionally endorsed religion or that a student might feel compelled to join him, even if doing so would violate the student's conscience. The court’s concern that students from minority faiths might feel offended or coerced into prayer, however misguided, is no doubt sincere.
But orthodox members of minority faiths like Judaism and Islam have more to fear from a government that seeks to drive faith from the public square than from one that allows their neighbors to publicly profess their faith.

Don't ask educators to compromise their faith
Observant Jews and Muslims engage in public practices that may catch the attention of others. For example, a Jewish coach standing on the sidelines at a football game would be required under Jewish law to make a blessing whenever he eats or drinks. Jews and Muslims wear distinctive attire, which could prompt questions from students that a teacher would naturally answer. The 9th Circuit's decision would allow or even require public schools to ban such private religious conduct.

Joseph Kennedy, a former assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash., on March 9, 2022. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on his case in June 2022.

The school in this case offered to let coach Kennedy keep his job if he agreed to pray at a later time when no students would see him. Those familiar only with Christianity, as the appeals court seems to have been, might not understand the coach’s claim that this would force him to violate his religious beliefs.

But such a "compromise" might put adherents of both Judaism and Islam in Kennedy's dilemma. Both faiths require adherents to pray during certain times of the day. Thus, an observant Jewish or Muslim staff member may feel religiously obligated to pray at a game, or while riding on the bus during a field trip. Under the 9th Circuit’s view, reciting such prayers would be unconstitutional. If that rule were allowed to stand, an observant Jew or Muslim would face pressure to either abandon his faith or his chosen profession.
To be sure, there are cases where a school might violate the First Amendment, such as a teacher penalizing students for refusing to recite Christian prayers. We agree that government entities may not coerce citizens into practicing the government's preferred faith. But in this case, the 9th Circuit went further and decided the establishment clause prohibits some personal religious conduct that is visible to students. The opinion does not provide a clear limiting principle, and its holding could prohibit all or nearly all personal religious conduct.

Don't let secularism exclude faithful from our schools
If Kennedy's prayer can be viewed as impermissible, then so can a teacher wearing any religious attire, such as a crucifix, yarmulke or hijab, or any other display of faith, like marking one’s forehead with an ash cross on Ash Wednesday.
This is the sort of hostility to religion that people of faith, especially minority faiths, experience in countries like France and Belgium, which restrict the presence of religion in the public square. This cannot be our law. Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to accommodate America's diversity of religious practices and viewpoints, not to eliminate religious exercise.

In 1894, in holding that Catholic nuns could not be banned from teaching in public schools even if they taught while wearing religious garb, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote:
"Are the courts to decide that the cut of a man's coat or the color of a woman's gown is sectarian teaching, because they indicate sectarian religious belief? If so, then they can be called upon to go further. The religion of the teacher being known, a pure, unselfish life, exhibiting itself in tenderness to the young, and helpfulness for the suffering, necessarily tends to promote the religion of the man or woman who lives it. Insensibly, in both young and old, there is a disposition to reverence such a one, and at least, to some extent, consider the life as the fruit of the particular religion. Therefore, irreproachable conduct, to that degree, is sectarian teaching. But shall the education of the children of the commonwealth be intrusted only to those men and women who are destitute of any religious belief?"
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the right balance between the free exercise rights of public school teachers and the prohibition of government establishment of religion. The 9th Circuit should have followed its example. Because it didn’t, the Supreme Court should reverse.


Howard Slugh is the general counsel of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty. Gregory Dolin is an associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Ismail Royer is director of the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team at the Religious Freedom Institute.

Howard Slugh is the general counsel of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty. Gregory Dolin is an associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Ismail Royer is director of the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team at the Religious Freedom Institute. They filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to side with coach Joseph Kennedy.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court allowed football Coach Joe Kennedy's Christian prayer
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,580
1,922
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#76
Full context of the quote which is stunningly not in line with fact or the Constitution

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1541508454740885511?t=x7A0u1N6kTMB67DMhi2VHQ&s=09
Yes, that was a stupid thing to say, since you first had better establish what is "the church" or which religion to listen to. But I think the 1st Amendment makes that question inappropriate to ask. Don't under estimate the far-right evangelicals desire to somehow try to bypass the constitution, in order to establish a Christian theocracy. And don't underestimate the voters. I wonder if she gains more votes than she loses as a result of that utter absurdity.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,688
7,344
1,743
Landlocked
#77
What's kind of ironic is that people bash denominations, etc. as old fashioned, corrupt, etc. And I'll acknowledge that there's some level of truth to it. But as a pastor within a denomination, I'm accountable to multiple governing bodies, and there's no way I could get away with something like this happening in the church I serve.
I'm always amazed when I hear about pastors endorsing or attacking politicians openly in public or from the pulpit. It's just not something I've ever witnessed, nor anything close to it, in nearly 40 years of attending church weekly across a broad spectrum of denominations and cultural spheres. 100% of the acknowledgements I've witnessed have been church leaders praying for wisdom, righteousness, etc....for politicians on all sides, even if it can sometimes be obvious who they are praying for in particular instances (like post 9/11, etc...).
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,868
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
#78
I'm always amazed when I hear about pastors endorsing or attacking politicians openly in public or from the pulpit. It's just not something I've ever witnessed, nor anything close to it, in nearly 40 years of attending church weekly across a broad spectrum of denominations and cultural spheres. 100% of the acknowledgements I've witnessed have been church leaders praying for wisdom, righteousness, etc....for politicians on all sides, even if it can sometimes be obvious who they are praying for in particular instances (like post 9/11, etc...).
I haven't witnessed it firsthand either, but my circles don't include the kinds of churches like the one in the video above. I had a ministerial colleague in a community where I used to live who would pass out a voting guide, which I guess could maybe be a little controversial, but I don't recall that it ever said, "if you're a Christian, you should vote for X or Y candidate." It was more an issue by issue deal followed by relevant Bible passages and the candidate's stance. Of course, it was skewed heavily in a certain direction and tended to emphasize some passages of Scripture and exclude others, but that's probably to be expected from any pastor who becomes overly focused on the politics of the day.

Regarding your last line, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Christians are supposed to pray for our leaders, even if we don't particularly like them. But, like you seem to be implying, there's a big difference between that and being openly partisan - essentially acting as an extension of someone's political campaign.
 
Last edited:

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,837
475
713
#79
Activist Asks To Lead Satanic Prayer At FL High School Football Game

SOUTH FLORIDA — After the U.S. Supreme Court backed a high school football coach's right to pray at the 50-yard line, a South Florida artist and political activist has reached out to a Broward County high school asking to lead a Satanic invocation at one of its football games.
Chaz Stevens, an atheist who founded the Mount Jab Church of Mars activist group, reached out to Broward County Schools, asking to lead a Satanic prayer at a football game at Deerfield Beach High School, which he attended.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
#80
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People should continue to read after the first comma....