There a very good reason from a religious POV to maintain a very clear church/state separation.

Religious people do not want the state to interfere with their theology, organization, practice, rituals, and membership.

The religious and secular do not want religious people influencing the state, either. The threat of the state to the religious is clear enough. Example: Non-religious people, mainline Protestants, and liberal Catholics do not like the Roe vs. Wade decision that is much more about about the politics of religion than it is about the law.

There is a lot of history showing what happens when the state decides to get involved in religious affairs, and visa versa.

Conservatives may be happy about Roe Vs. Wade today, but suppose a future court (and/or legislature) decrees that evolution WILL BE TAUGHT and so called Intelligent Design WILL NOT BE TAUGHT?

As one expects, it depends on whose ox is getting gored by whom.

As one expects, it depends on whose ox is getting gored by whom. — Bitter Crank

Conservatives feel just as strongly and as bitterly about marriage equality as liberals do about abortion. They said the same types of things about the courts as liberals are saying now.

I agree, especially about the part about church and state being separated (and I imagine most Americans would as well, religious and non-religious).

However, depending on the way you look at it, the government limiting the way people express their religion could be seen as infringing on the separation of church and state. Or them not restricting religious speech could be seen as implicitly advocating for a certain religion too. This is why the case itself gets a bit technical-i.e. were other students participating, was it during sponsored school hours, etc.

There's something absurd, even neurotic, about thanking god for winning a football game.

Perhaps. But even so, does that mean the government has (or should have) the right to intervene in these cases?

Religious people do not want the state to interfere with their theology, organization, practice, rituals, and membership. — Bitter Crank

They seem to want the freedom to persecute others and have the right to inflict religious values on the wider community. It's hard to see how America has meaningful church and state separation when even the fucking currency has In God We Trust emblazoned upon it. Given the mighty dollar's importance to the prosperity gospel of much biblical literalism, this seems apropos.

It's hard to see how America has meaningful church and state separation when even the fucking currency has In God We Trust emblazoned upon it. — Tom Storm

This is baloney.

Tell me why.

Maybe the coach was cursing God because they lost.

,
The complex history of ‘In God We Trust’

Down here, if someone wanted to pray in the middle of the field after a game, we'd let 'em, but laugh and take the piss. To my eye, that is a far more civilised response.

My understanding is that the case began when some team members were ostracised because they would not join in. If that is correct, and it is a public school team, then the coach was in the wrong, and it is an issue suitable for trial.

That would be acceptable.

Thanks. Yep.

It's hard to see how America has meaningful church and state separation when even the fucking currency has In God We Trust emblazoned upon it. — Tom Storm

I suppose it says "in god we trust" because they can't trust each other?

Maybe that is the subtext. A Christian might say that the foundational guarantee for all trust is Jesus. I'd question the possibility of a meaningful secular state when the instrument which lubricates its wheels is already complicit in religious privilege. Imagine the outcry if it were changed to In Allah We Trust. I wonder how many of the ferocious fundies and bigots for Jesus would defend this kind of religious freedom.

I suppose it says "in god we trust" because they can't trust each other? — Banno

Absolutely

"In God we trust", all others pay cash, first appeared on a coin in 1864; on currency in 1957. It is the official motto of the US, replacing E Pluribus Unum. -- Wikipedia --

"In God we trust" strikes me as more of a deistic motto, though I doubt if deism was the prevailing religious mode of the congress and President Eisenhower when the motto was changed. "Jesus saves" would probably have passed, had somebody proposed it.

It's a nicer motto than "God hates fags and commies", don't you think? π=3.141592 could have been used; it still could be. I don't think any country has used it. It would help people remember π when they have to calculate areas and volumes of round things.

you are old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards. (youth: Earl Warren was a liberal Chief Justice long long ago.)

I agree; the issue comes down to whether students were coerced into participating/ostracized for not participating. And it seems like the facts from either side tell a very different story, making it difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on.

The way Gorsuch saw it in his writing

There is no indication in the record...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 [distinguishing it from cases] in which this Court has found prayer involving public schools to be problematically coercive

Sanford Levinson said in an interview (before the ruling was announced)

If you accept the district’s view of what was going on this, I think the coach’s actions would have been viewed as potentially coercive. And you’ve got cases that certainly support that. But it will be interesting to see if my predicted majority decision simply says that former Justice Kennedy, who wrote the decision and was the swing vote in the in the Rhode Island case, was wrong and that as long as the coach isn’t saying explicitly, ‘you must say this prayer,’ but he’s instead only asking ‘who wants to come pray on the 50-yard line,’ that’s not coercive

It's a nicer motto than "God hates fags and commies" — Bitter Crank

I think that's being used by Brazil.

You're right, deism had some mission creep in the old Republic.

Tell me why. — Tom Storm

There may be a good case to show the US doesn't have separation of church and state, but that isn't it. It's trivial. I think we do a reasonably good job, but I'm not particularly interested in starting a long conversation, but that bullshit reason pissed me off.

you are old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards. (youth: Earl Warren was a liberal Chief Justice long long ago. — Bitter Crank

I do remember them, although I didn't really know what they meant, being 10 or 11. That's why I laugh at the current pushes to impeach Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Same as it ever was.

I suppose it says "in god we trust" because they can't trust each other? — Banno

Nationalist bigotry. To hell with the kangaroos. You're all back on the list when we drop the big one.

It's trivial. — T Clark

You're right - it was a glib line.

the issue comes down to whether students were coerced into participating/ostracized for not participating. — Paulm12

I don't agree. The conduct is unprofessional, since is introduces the potential for excluding some students on religious grounds. The coach should have been aware of that possibility, and hence his behaviour was negligent. I would have reprimanded him on the first instance, and instigated proceedings to terminate employment thereafter.

That it wasted th time for the supremes is... tragic.

You're all back on the list when we drop the big one. — T Clark

:wink: My comment hit a nerve, then.

To hell with the kangaroos. — T Clark

We should probably protect the wildlife.

I don't disagree that it is unprofessional. In fact, I'd go farther and say if Kennedy is a Christian, it is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 6:6). The question is whether or not Kennedy should legally be allowed to make himself look like an idiot (or crusader, depending on who you ask) on the field.

Take a similar incident, where a teacher in Texas was put on paid leave (same as Kennedy) for having BLM and LGBTQ posters in her virtual classroom https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/26/texas-teacher-black-lives-matter-LGBTQ/ after parents complained (She was offered her job back, but declined). Are teachers allowed to make political statements in the classroom but not religious ones? What differentiates religious speech/expression from political speech/expression?

John Polm testified that he later became aware of a parent's complaint that his son 'felt compelled to participate' in Kennedy's religious activity, even though he was an atheist, because 'he felt he wouldn't get to play as much if he didn't participate.'” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 991 F.3d 1004, 1011 (9th Cir. 2021)

However we can imagine a religious student who hears of this case and feels coerced not to pray during school because he sees the ruling as hostile to prayer, and has a similar complaint to his firing. This, to me, is why it is an excellent case for the court-it helps establish principles for when teachers/coaches are representing the government and when they are themselves individuals.

The question is whether or not Kennedy should legally be allowed to make himself look like an idiot (or crusader, depending on who you ask) on the field. — Paulm12

The main issue is that it's a public school. Religious indoctrination isn't allowed when state funds are in use.

I don't know. Same shit different day as far as i can see.

Take a similar incident, where a teacher in Texas was put on paid leave (same as Kennedy) for having BLM and LGBTQ posters in her virtual classroom — Paulm12

I don't see how displaying a poster excluded anyone - except perhaps homophobes. It's not a similar case.

This is true. But effect prong of the Lemon Test (Lemon v Kurtzman) states

The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion

and the entanglement prong states

The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

So it seems up to interpretation whether allowing the coach to pray with students is indoctrination, or if firing him is infringing upon his first amendment rights.

It seems to me that the court is saying that religious speech in classrooms must be (perhaps explicitly) coercive in order to be unconstitutional (see here).

I don't think this is the end of the separation of church and state. Perhaps it is a backlash to secularization.

, Shame the focus is on "indoctrination" - it should be on exclusion.