Joe Kennedy, former assistant football coach, at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash., March 9, 2022.
photo:
Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press
Historians assessing the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts may need to write an entire book on its remarkable rules protecting religious freedom in the face of rising secularism. And a In 6-3 cases that came on Monday Upholding the authority of a high-school football coach to pray privately on the field after the game.
The Washington State School Punished Coach Joseph Kennedy for “Involving in a Brief, Quiet, Personal Religious Ceremony,” As Justice Neil Gorsuch Writes for the Majority Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, “The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.” Can we have amen?
As Justice Gorsuch laid out the facts, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own at first, though eventually players joined him. “For more than seven years, no one has complained,” he writes. Then a visitor to the well “made a positive comment on the practices of the school to the principal of Bremerton.” The fight started. When the school district asked Mr. Kennedy to stop attending the students in prayer, he complied.
But the school also asked him to stay away from “open” religious activities while on duty. After three games, he prayed in midfield anyway, as his team did other activities, such as singing fight songs. Court records call her prayers on those days “transient,” “brief,” and “quiet.” As a result, he lost his job.
The school argued that since Mr. Kennedy was on duty, the prayers were state speeches and violated no government’s pledge to “establish a religion” of the Constitution. a legal trial, lies in Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971), is whether a “reasonable observer” could see some religious conduct and think (though incorrectly) that it had government support.
Court has erased the so-called Lemon Tried over the years, and with this decision Justice Gorsuch now characterized it as “abstract” and “historic”, while rebuking lower judges for citing it. Mr. Kennedy’s prayer was a private practice. This happened after the game, when staff were free to check their phones or chat with spectators.
If Mr. Kennedy’s action is considered a government speech, Justice Gorsuch writes, “A school can expel a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf to class or a Christian colleague from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria.” can stop.”
The dissenting for liberals is the High Court’s most dogmatic religious objection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. On the facts, he portrayed Mr. Kennedy in a less flattering light, saying that he refused the school’s attempts to find housing. Instead he went to the media, pledging to pray at the 50-yard line, which resulted in a game publicly rushed to join him. Some parents, Justice Sotomayor says, have their children attend earlier prayers “to avoid completely isolating themselves from the rest of the team.”
Yet Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is carefully narrow and does not involve coercion. On the law, Justice Sotomayor says the majority fails to respect the tension between the constitution’s restrictions on religious establishment and guarantees of religious free exercise. Justice Gorsuch responded that the First Amendment makes both promises in the same sentence.
“A natural reading,” he says, “suggests that the segments have ‘complementary’ purposes, not combative ones.” He says the school punished Mr. Kennedy “under the mistaken idea that he had a duty to remove and repress religious observances.”
The deep importance of this matter and Last week on state aid private schools (Carson vs MakinoIt is that the Supreme Court is slowly restoring a proper constitutional understanding of the relationship between religion and the state. In the 20th century the Court began to use the Establishment Clause to allow the government to prohibit religious practice and speech that is protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
The Roberts Court’s decision on religious freedom does not put any state establishment of religion at risk. But they let Americans of the faith express their views – just as the founders intended.
Journal editorial report: Right to “hold arms” means what it says. Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
opinion | A football coach’s prayer is constitutional
Joe Kennedy, former assistant football coach, at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash., March 9, 2022.
photo:
Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press
Historians assessing the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts may need to write an entire book on its remarkable rules protecting religious freedom in the face of rising secularism. And a In 6-3 cases that came on Monday Upholding the authority of a high-school football coach to pray privately on the field after the game.
The Washington State School Punished Coach Joseph Kennedy for “Involving in a Brief, Quiet, Personal Religious Ceremony,” As Justice Neil Gorsuch Writes for the Majority Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, “The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.” Can we have amen?
As Justice Gorsuch laid out the facts, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own at first, though eventually players joined him. “For more than seven years, no one has complained,” he writes. Then a visitor to the well “made a positive comment on the practices of the school to the principal of Bremerton.” The fight started. When the school district asked Mr. Kennedy to stop attending the students in prayer, he complied.
But the school also asked him to stay away from “open” religious activities while on duty. After three games, he prayed in midfield anyway, as his team did other activities, such as singing fight songs. Court records call her prayers on those days “transient,” “brief,” and “quiet.” As a result, he lost his job.
The school argued that since Mr. Kennedy was on duty, the prayers were state speeches and violated no government’s pledge to “establish a religion” of the Constitution. a legal trial, lies in Lemon vs Kurtzman (1971), is whether a “reasonable observer” could see some religious conduct and think (though incorrectly) that it had government support.
Court has erased the so-called Lemon Tried over the years, and with this decision Justice Gorsuch now characterized it as “abstract” and “historic”, while rebuking lower judges for citing it. Mr. Kennedy’s prayer was a private practice. This happened after the game, when staff were free to check their phones or chat with spectators.
If Mr. Kennedy’s action is considered a government speech, Justice Gorsuch writes, “A school can expel a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf to class or a Christian colleague from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria.” can stop.”
The dissenting for liberals is the High Court’s most dogmatic religious objection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. On the facts, he portrayed Mr. Kennedy in a less flattering light, saying that he refused the school’s attempts to find housing. Instead he went to the media, pledging to pray at the 50-yard line, which resulted in a game publicly rushed to join him. Some parents, Justice Sotomayor says, have their children attend earlier prayers “to avoid completely isolating themselves from the rest of the team.”
Yet Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is carefully narrow and does not involve coercion. On the law, Justice Sotomayor says the majority fails to respect the tension between the constitution’s restrictions on religious establishment and guarantees of religious free exercise. Justice Gorsuch responded that the First Amendment makes both promises in the same sentence.
“A natural reading,” he says, “suggests that the segments have ‘complementary’ purposes, not combative ones.” He says the school punished Mr. Kennedy “under the mistaken idea that he had a duty to remove and repress religious observances.”
The deep importance of this matter and Last week on state aid private schools (Carson vs MakinoIt is that the Supreme Court is slowly restoring a proper constitutional understanding of the relationship between religion and the state. In the 20th century the Court began to use the Establishment Clause to allow the government to prohibit religious practice and speech that is protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
The Roberts Court’s decision on religious freedom does not put any state establishment of religion at risk. But they let Americans of the faith express their views – just as the founders intended.
Journal editorial report: Right to “hold arms” means what it says. Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
Copyright © 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Print edition as ‘A Coach’s Prayer Is Constitutional’, published June 28, 2022.