Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent Has It Down Right: We Need Not (And Should Not) Tolerate Overt Person of Authority “Evangelism” At PUBLIC High School Events…

The “regression” agenda is in high dungeon, at SCOTUS’s “rule of five” [Ma’ Gawd wing] again this morning. Just now, the Court held that a public high school [X-ian] prayer, on a public school football field at the end of the game, led by a public school (paid) coach… cannot be enjoined; and cannot be the basis for firing the coach. That is… frankly… insane.

I wonder how… “included” the Jewish, Atheist and Muslim team members felt… especially if they declined to join in the praise of god they do not recognize (and in some cases, are forbidden by their religious law — praising a “false” god). [Were they justifiably worried… about being benched?]
These MAGA Justices are going to see… a Court of 13, yet.

I should add that technically, the coach was praying alone on the field in the subsequent offense that got him fired. But for the whole prior season, he and the team had prayed on the field, at the 50 yard line — pictures in the dissenting opinion.

Having the team join him is “evangelizing” for a particular religion — on public school property, by a public employee, on work time, and an employee with clear “aura of authority” over vulnerable young students. [What any of us genuinely hold as spiritual- or other views, here are… supposed to be left out of public school teaching, except as a “history of philosophical thought” course.]

To use a phrase the MAGAts and Q-GOP throw around aimlessly, and irresponsibly (as to LGBTQ+ events/expressions)… he was “grooming” those kids to be intolerant Xians, all along. Again — probably exactly what Alito and Thomas are hoping for.

The Church of England in 1670 had nothing… on them.

The case is called Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.:

…Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched.

A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so….

Damnation. The only thing I would add… is that this evangelist held a position of authority over these ball-players. Ugly.

But great contribution, as always, inspired by/from Anon.!

नमस्ते

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.