At issue was Coach Joe Kennedy an 18 year Marine vet . He is a religious High School Football Coach . At issue was that he was seen kneeling and praying for about 15 seconds at the 50 yard lines after games . Some of his players saw him and asked to join him. His reply was that this was a free country ..


His principle got a complement from a coach from another school about it . So the principle launched and investigation. District officials asked him to stop praying with students . He agreed .

That was not enough .They then asked him to stop praying where he could be seen. They offered him a small out of the way press box to do his prayers .

He refused.

The school fired him.

He sued .

The 9th Circus Court somehow decided that his prayer was government speech prohibited by the Establishment Clause .

The case went to SCOTUS

He won.

21-418 Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (06/27/2022) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf)

Justice Gorsuch wrote :

"We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to '(make) it necessary for government to be hostile to religion' in this way,"


"The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,"


“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” .... “Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. … The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.”


Justice Sotomayor in her dissent claimed the students were cooerced into praying with him. That is just nonsense. The students who participated in the brief prayer asked to join him.

In another case this session ,SCOTUS decided that if Maine was giving subsidies to private schools ,that religious private schools could not be excluded .

20-1088 Carson v. Makin (06/21/2022) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf)

Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion.

"Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,"

"Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise."

So much for tolerance.


An alumni group at Rhodes College created a petition for the school to remove Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the school's "Hall of Fame" because of her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The petition was created by Rhodes College Alumni for Reproductive Rights and is being sent to the school's president Jennifer Collins and Director of Community Standards Richard Adams.

According to the letter, the signatories' "firm belief in the Rhodes Honor Code we all signed impels us to make this request."

The letter argues that Barrett has violated the Rhodes Honor Code through her testimony in the Senate confirmation hearings and in her "judicial decision-making process."

So they consider it to be an issue of "honor"? I guess any excuse will do when you are against the rule of law.

Why did Coach Kennedy (at a public high school) choose to kneel in prayer on the field in front of everyone? Why couldn't he have stayed on the sidelines, bowed his head (and that wasn't necessary), and sent a thank you heavenward?

Had the coach been Muslim and spread his prayer rug on the 50-yard line and knelt to pray, then what would have happened?

Either it's OK for him to pray in public or it's not. Where it takes place would seem to have no bearing on it.

I added more to Post #4. Please read on.


Either it's OK for him to pray in public or it's not. Where it takes place would seem to have no bearing on it.
I'm all for prayer, but as a show??? No!!!

Had the coach a prayer rug and bowed to Mecca this would never had been an issue . OR if the coach made a public display of kneeling during the National Anthem he would've been applauded .

Thus, public school teachers can begin class with a prayer and they will ask students to join in. And in the operating room the surgeon with scalpel in hand can ask his medical team and the as yet unanesthetized patient just before surgery to join him in prayer. And the American Airlines pilot can, before takeoff, announce to the passengers that they are welcome to join him in a prayer for a safe flight.

P.S. Kneeling during the National Anthem has nothing to do with prayer.

Thus, public school teachers can begin class with a prayer and they will ask students to join in.This latest decision does not allow for that. The football players were not asked to join in. They inquired about it on their own. You dreaming up untrue conditions does not mean they happened.


And in the operating room the surgeon with scalpel in hand can ask his medical team and the as yet unanesthetized patient just before surgery to join him in prayer. What would be wrong with that?


And the American Airlines pilot can, before takeoff, announce to the passengers that they are welcome to join him in a prayer for a safe flight.Strictly up to American Airlines. The government has no business interfering and this latest decision has no bearing on it at all.

WG: Thus, public school teachers can begin class with a prayer and they will ask students to join in.

JL: This latest decision does not allow for that. The football players were not asked to join in. They inquired about it on their own.

Then, public school teachers can begin class with a prayer and students can ask to join in. Christian prayer (the Lord's Prayer) on Monday, Jewish prayer (the Shema) on Tuesday, Muslim prayer (the Fatiha) on Wednesday, Buddhism prayer (the Refuge prayer) on Thursday, Hinduism prayer (the Gayatri Mantra) on Friday.

You really need to read the decision. You are dramatically mischaracterizing it, a strategy also employed by liberal dems concerning the Dobbs case.

You really need to read the decision. You are dramatically mischaracterizing it, a strategy also employed by liberal dems concerning the Dobbs case.
The players inquired on their own, probably hoping to make points with the coach.

What it tells me is that a school district does not have the power to deny someone their free exercise rights. And it puts to bed the nonsense argument that any prayer in a school violated the establishment clause . Your presumption that the students were coerced is contrary to the facts of the case .

Yeah. You know those Christians. They never want to pray simply for the privilege and honor of doing so.

Your presumption that the students were coerced is contrary to the facts of the case .
Coerced? I never said that or even assumed that..


Yeah. You know those Christians. They never want to pray simply for the privilege and honor of doing so.
Pray in the lockerroom, not on the field.

To quote you


Thus, public school teachers can begin class with a prayer and they will ask students to join in. And in the operating room the surgeon with scalpel in hand can ask his medical team and the as yet unanesthetized patient just before surgery to join him in prayer. And the American Airlines pilot can, before takeoff, announce to the passengers that they are welcome to join him in a prayer for a safe flight.

If the teacher is asking the students to join in ,it is coercion. But in this case there was no such suggestion by the coach .

Asking is not coercion. If grades are used as an intimidation, arm-twisting, that's coercion.

says you . But the advocates who oppose prayers in school indeed call it coercion .

Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy opens the door to coercive prayer in schools | NEA (https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/supreme-court-ruling-kennedy-opens-door-coercive-prayer-schools)

Justics Scalia and Thomas thought true coercion required threat of penalty

Sacalia wrote in Marxh v Chambers that The Court’s argument that state officials have ‘coerced’ students to take part in the invocation and benediction at graduation ceremonies is, not to put too fine a point on it, incoherent.” “The coercion that was a hallmark of historical establishments of religion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty.”

You don’t get to determine where people pray. Your desire to do so is a perfect example of what we need to avoid in this country.

You don’t get to determine where people pray. Your desire to do so is a perfect example of what we need to avoid in this country.
Thus, it's okay for Muslims or Buddhists or Jews to pray in public areas.

Generally speaking, yes. There are limits to that. You can't just march into a public office building and take it over for a prayer meeting, but employees could certainly meet at lunch in an empty meeting room to pray.

But not in the worker-occupied areas. But then, why not? Fellow employees might become intrigued as they see the prayer group's actions and decide to join in.

That depends. If a person intends to eat lunch at his desk and says a prayer of blessing, then fine. If a group want to pray during everyone's common lunch time, then fine. If someone wants to stand and pray at 3:30 in a way that would interrupt everyone else, then not fine. The exercise of some common sense would help a lot. A coach praying after the game on the field, a very common practice with many college teams, is certainly not infringing on anyone's right to not have a religion imposed upon them. If some of his players want to join in, then that is fine as well for the same reason. With all of the problems we have in this country, it is beyond amazing that anyone would think a group of people praying after a football game would be something to be concerned about.

it is beyond amazing that anyone would think a group of people praying after a football game would be something to be concerned about.
...or praying in an office. Something else to be concerned about: Evangelical Christians walk up and down streets and sidewalks and around in public parks, sometimes with amplification, shouting out Bible verses, mini-sermons, and threats of hellfire.

It’s called freedom of speech.

Very annoying, even off-putting.. There are much better ways to reach people and preach the Gospel.

I would agree with that, just like I think destroying public and private properties is a bad idea for BLM.

I would agree with that, just like I think destroying public and private properties is a bad idea for BLM.
And for Oath Keepers and other Trump followers.

Very true in all cases. That would include the use of loudspeakers by pro-abortion protestors. It would also include the destruction of pregnancy help centers.

I agree.

This is TWO agreements in just one week. It's getting a little eerie.

Good night. Hope the hubster is doing well.

Good night! Husband is doing well. Thanks for asking.

Very annoying, even off-putting.
There is no constitutional right to not be annoyed . My method is to tell them to have a nice day and walk away without otherwise engaging .

Wifey and I went to an "art" exhibit a few days ago in our state art museum. One of the works on display involved four large murals, each one depicting a particular right. The first two involved freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The final two portrayed freedom from want and freedom from fear, both of which were simply cooked up from thin air. Any level of thought at all would have helped the artist see that the last one concerning fear was unworkable. Suppose I complained that her art exhibit made me fearful. Could I then insist that it be taken down since, after all, I have a right to be free from fear?

The general retreat from the concept of the rule of law should concern everyone.

those are progressive inventions .How can the government guarantee freedom from want or fear ?

What FDR suggested for Freedom from want is an "economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. " .

Freedom from fear to FDR was a 'world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world'.

FDR, "The Four Freedoms," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy (umd.edu) (https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/fdr-the-four-freedoms-speech-text/)

Those may be laudable utopian goals .But how are they achieved without the heavy hand of government imposition that weakens individual rights ? It invents freedoms that suppresses others . Effectively they replace existing freedoms with new invented ones.
Worse ;the freedoms replace freedoms that are protection from the state to dependency on the state.

A clear example of this is his pretending to honor freedom of speech. If he really believed speech should be protected then why did he say in the same speech

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups... The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.

3 years later he completely jumped the shark by proposing a 2nd bill of rights ..... all positive rights (things the gvt must do for you ....aka freebees ) ;as opposed to "negative " rights .......what the government cannot do to you ;which was the premise behind the 1st bill of rights .

“True individual freedom can’t exist without economic security.” ...“the right to a useful and remunerative job,” a “decent home,” “good health,” and “good education.”...“the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.” ....the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition.”

www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html (http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html)