State sponsored religions were encouraged by the founders. Congress shall make no law. The states are free to do what they want. The local schools are free to do what they want.
Absurd, know-nothing reply. Read a little about federalism and supremacy of federal law. This Supreme Court is setting itself up to be (1) expanded, (2) marginalized, and (3) relegated to the dustbin of history's terribles.
Actually no. The 14th Amendment takes care of that as it applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
Matthew 6:6 ... when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
Gorsuch hasn't read his Bible.
Never heard of hyperbole to get a point across? Jesus prayed publicly many times.
Hyberbole is a word you do not understand. Please list the times Jesus prayed publicly to smote a rival.
I ask myself, "Would the Supreme Court have voted 6-3 in defense of the Bremerton coach if he had brought out a prayer rug and kneeled to Allah?"
My honest answer is, "No. The Court didn't vote to permit freedom of religion, it voted to permit freedom of Christianity." I'm pretty sure that most people who applaud the vote feel the same way.
So I am not buying that this was a vote based on Constitutional principles.
I advise you to find the Advisory Opinion podcasts on the case. One is right after oral arguments. The other is from after the decision. They will walk you through it.
A friend joked that if it had been a Muslim the vote would have been 9-0 :)
Alas in 2015 the court ruled 8-1 for a Muslim woman in a suit against Abercrombie and Fitch over the wearing of a hijab (it did not follow the A&B dress code). I am going with them believing a right to pray would get that 1 dissenting vote (not sure who the dissenter was, probably Thomas over a substantive due process claim).
Obviously, trolls will be trolls, but this is actually pretty funny. Seriously though, I do want to see a case where a Muslim prays on the field. The current Supreme Court would probably rule that is unconstitutional.
Seriously? A right-wing website is your unbiased source?
The National Review Online describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.” They frequently uses loaded emotional wording in headlines that favor the right. Such as,
Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority – FALSE
Obviously, trolls will be trolls, but this is actually pretty funny. Seriously though, I do want to see a case where a Muslim prays on the field. The current Supreme Court would probably rule that is unconstitutional.
As well as any religion that is not Bible-based Christian. Never mind that the God of Christians, Jews and Muslims is the exact same God, the God of Abraham.
Seriously? A right-wing website is your unbiased source?
The National Review Online describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.” They frequently uses loaded emotional wording in headlines that favor the right. Such as,
Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority – FALSE
This is actually a worse decision than Roe jurisprudentially (not in terms of impact, of course). Establishment clause cases have been very consistent on prohibiting schools from imposing religion on students. As recently as Santa Fe v. Doe, the USC ruled 6-3 that allowing students to use the PA system before a football game to lead a prayer violated the establishment clause because the use of school PA system at a school sponsored event would give the impression that the school endorsed the religious practice of the students. The recent football game opinion blows past Santa Fe and all the prior prayer in schools decisions. A school employee leads a prayer on school property at a school event. Gorsuch says that this is all just fine as long as the kids were not required to attend the prayer after the game. But what Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Jewish or agnostic kid would think when almost the entire football team prays to Jesus Christ after a football game? Basically, any religious activity is now fair game in public schools as long as the school can argue that it is not mandatory. That will mean Jesus from sun up to sun down in rural districts. In my neighborhood, schools are taking in students who are refugees from Afghanistan. Just imagine what it would be like for these kids if bible thumpers inject "optional" religious activities all over the place and are constantly shoving Christianity in these kids' faces?
I believe in this case the football game (school event) was over and the coach didn’t use the PA system or other school resources. The left loves to exaggerate. Take your hatred of religion somewhere else
I always get a kick out of the Satanists applying their right to freedom of religion. I had a couple coaches when I was younger that seem a bit "satanic" to me lol
You do all realize that this was not an Establishment Clause case at all. It was a Free Exercise of Religion case. These are two totally separate parts of the 1st Amendment. This case had nothing to do with the public school (Government agency) endorsing or supporting a religion but was rather about the school district (Government agency) not allowing this coach to practice his religion as a private citizen after games were over.
He interprets the constitution. You need to go back to civics class if you think he is supposed to rule based on the bible.
He interprets the Constitution according to his own personal view of the Bible. He certainly has no room for Jefferson's remark that there should be "a wall of separation" between church and state.
My kid is already chatting with teammates about having Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer circle at an XC meet. They will all place kitchen colanders on their heads and chant about being touched by his noodly appendages and the joys of being a Pastafarian.
People already did that when I was in college. Nobody cared.
The justices are required to interpret the constitution so I am glad that they aren't considering writings that the founding fathers made. Some may have changed their views. Some went senile. Biden was once against gay marriage but now is for it.
You do all realize that this was not an Establishment Clause case at all. It was a Free Exercise of Religion case. These are two totally separate parts of the 1st Amendment. This case had nothing to do with the public school (Government agency) endorsing or supporting a religion but was rather about the school district (Government agency) not allowing this coach to practice his religion as a private citizen after games were over.
Jesus Christ that is one dumb take, Curio. Did you even read the goddam case you are commenting on? Jesus Christ. There is Establishment Clause all over it. The only reason the case got to the Supreme Court was because the Ninth Circuit based its ruling on the Establishment Clause. All these types of cases discuss the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. They go hand in hand here.
Jesus Christ. Gorsuch spent 5 pages discussing the Establishment Clause. Here, read the goddam thing.
Yes I did read the opinion. and in it the justices held it was not an establishment clause issue. the coach won on free exercise of region and free speech
I’m amazed at all the constitutional scholars that have come out of the woodwork. Lol
Really though whether it’s abortion, transgender, CRT, prayer on school grounds…, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Big corporations and the government are getting richer and richer. Only fools argue this garbage they use to distract the masses.
