How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[ZiprHead]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. Kennedy marks an effort to overturn nearly 60 years of precedent protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head. The case erases the rights of children who wish to avoid religious coercion at school, fixating instead on the right of school officials to practice their religion during the course of their formal duties. It is the culmination of a decadeslong battle to reframe government neutrality toward religion as unconstitutional discrimination against people of faith. And it is chillingly likely to succeed.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Kennedy as a mere doctrinal shift in constitutional law, as radical as that doctrinal shift would be. This case is also the product of the Republican political campaign aimed at restoring public schools’ authority to indoctrinate students with Christianity. The campaign is on the brink of success in the courts because proponents of school prayer have perfected a tactic that reverses the victim and offender.

Today, school officials who coerce students into prayer go on the offensive, claiming that any attempt to halt their efforts at religious coercion is actually persecution of their religious beliefs. Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

 

[Jarhyn]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. Kennedy marks an effort to overturn nearly 60 years of precedent protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head. The case erases the rights of children who wish to avoid religious coercion at school, fixating instead on the right of school officials to practice their religion during the course of their formal duties. It is the culmination of a decadeslong battle to reframe government neutrality toward religion as unconstitutional discrimination against people of faith. And it is chillingly likely to succeed.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Kennedy as a mere doctrinal shift in constitutional law, as radical as that doctrinal shift would be. This case is also the product of the Republican political campaign aimed at restoring public schools’ authority to indoctrinate students with Christianity. The campaign is on the brink of success in the courts because proponents of school prayer have perfected a tactic that reverses the victim and offender.

Today, school officials who coerce students into prayer go on the offensive, claiming that any attempt to halt their efforts at religious coercion is actually persecution of their religious beliefs. Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

This will backfire horribly WRT TST.

 

[Metaphor]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

 

[Bomb#20]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. ... Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

What's your point? Do you have a position on all this? Do you think it's a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

 

[Jarhyn]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. ... Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

What's your point? Do you have a position on all this? Do you think it's a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

So it appears you do wish teachers to be able to subject you and your children to Christian prayer under veiled implications that not participating may yield consequences of some unspecific sort?

What is your vested interest in "Doesn't Look Like Anything To Me..."?

I suppose you would be fine if someone stood in front of you every time you went to work and clapped their hands toghether and proclaimed in a decidedly outside voice "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith"?

No, you wouldn't. It's clearly someone threatening your job using god as a proxy for themselves

Of course the best thing to do about it is then to, as a teacher, regularly perform esoteric rituals to Lucifer via a big Baphomet statue on your desk to invoke prosperity and wisdom and self-directed thought. TST is probably already accepting teacher volunteers to throw their careers down on that altar of sacrifice for the good of all.

But I am curious why you, bomb, jump in defending what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

 

[Bomb#20]

What's your point? Do you have a position on all this? Do you think it's a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

So it appears ---> TO ME <--- you do wish teachers to be able to subject you and your children to Christian prayer under veiled implications that not participating may yield consequences of some unspecific sort?

FIFY.

The reason it appears that way TO YOU is that you are mind-blowingly bad at reading comprehension. Get a clue.

But I am curious why you, bomb, jump in defending...

I didn't say a bloody word in its defense. I simply invited Ziprhead to explain his agenda in this thread, if he has one.

 

[Jarhyn]

What's your point? Do you have a position on all this? Do you think it's a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

So it appears ---> TO ME <--- you do wish teachers to be able to subject you and your children to Christian prayer under veiled implications that not participating may yield consequences of some unspecific sort?

FIFY.

The reason it appears that way TO YOU is that you are mind-blowingly bad at reading comprehension. Get a clue.

But I am curious why you, bomb, jump in defending...

I didn't say a bloody word in its defense. I simply invited Ziprhead to explain his agenda in this thread, if he has one.

Asking someone whether they have an agenda when they point out something blatantly problematic:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

Is itself a "bloody word in it's defense". It's an oblique attack.

I ask again, why do you think there needs to be an agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

 

[Swammerdami]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

He wants a quiet private prayer. It's not his fault if hundreds of hate-filled Trumpsuckers use it as an opportunity to vent their rage against atheistic libtards.

He and his lawyers then launched a media blitz, falsely claiming that he had been persecuted for quiet, private prayer. School district officials were inundated with hateful threats from the public. His postgame prayer circles then became a spectacle, with media and spectators rushing onto the field to watch or join. At one game, students racing from the stands tripped over cables and knocked over members of the school band; parents later complained about the “stampede” threatening their children’s safety. In effect, Kennedy had hijacked the school’s football games to pray with team members in the most public manner conceivable. After he refused multiple offers of potential accommodations, the school placed him on paid administrative leave.


The next year, he did not apply for a contract renewal—then falsely claimed that he had been fired. Kennedy later sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

Perhaps Kennedy and Slate are both spinning. I think I know the percentage bet.

 

[Metaphor]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

He wants a quiet private prayer. It's not his fault if hundreds of hate-filled Trumpsuckers use it as an opportunity to vent their rage against atheistic libtards.

He and his lawyers then launched a media blitz, falsely claiming that he had been persecuted for quiet, private prayer. School district officials were inundated with hateful threats from the public. His postgame prayer circles then became a spectacle, with media and spectators rushing onto the field to watch or join. At one game, students racing from the stands tripped over cables and knocked over members of the school band; parents later complained about the “stampede” threatening their children’s safety. In effect, Kennedy had hijacked the school’s football games to pray with team members in the most public manner conceivable. After he refused multiple offers of potential accommodations, the school placed him on paid administrative leave.


The next year, he did not apply for a contract renewal—then falsely claimed that he had been fired. Kennedy later sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

Perhaps Kennedy and Slate are both spinning. I think I know the percentage bet.

If there is a dispute about the facts, we will have to wait for what the court finds.

 

[Bomb#20]

I didn't say a bloody word in its defense. I simply invited Ziprhead to explain his agenda in this thread, if he has one.

Asking someone whether they have an agenda when they point out something blatantly problematic:

[Jarhyn's opinion snipped]

Is itself a "bloody word in it's defense". It's an oblique attack.

And an attack is a defense, is it? What a strange experience it must be, to live inside your mind. You do know that "attack" and "defense" are antonyms, don't you?

I ask again, why do you think there needs to be an agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?

 

[Bronzeage]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

That's what happens when you publicly act contrary to scripture.
Mathew 6:5
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others."

No theocracy should tolerate such behavior in a public employee.

 

[Jarhyn]

I didn't say a bloody word in its defense. I simply invited Ziprhead to explain his agenda in this thread, if he has one.

Asking someone whether they have an agenda when they point out something blatantly problematic:

[Jarhyn's opinion snipped]

Is itself a "bloody word in it's defense". It's an oblique attack.

And an attack is a defense, is it? What a strange experience it must be, to live inside your mind. You do know that "attack" and "defense" are antonyms, don't you?

I ask again, why do you think there needs to be an agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?

Wow, that's some straight up scientology level "what are your crimes" bullshit.

There needs to be no larger agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

The idea that you see a larger agenda admits that you understand that there can be larger agendas, like the one I outlined above becoming available as an attack against people like us and our children.

There's no both sides here. I completely laid out my agenda in fighting bullshit like this.

 

[Politesse]

It's a blatant power grab, and nothing else. No one ever had a profound religious insight in the context of forced communal prayer; they merely wish to be seen "defending prayer" and thus store up earthly power and riches for themselves. Jesus had some choice words for such lying hypocrites. If any of their beliefs are actually true, they are destined for the sulfurous flames, in this life or the next.

But until then, I don't see that there's much Americans can really do about this at the federal level - the decision is what it is, and would not be easy to undo. And as it is and has been a key element of the Trump engine, good luck getting any support or even a hearing from any Republican. They too are liars like their father the devil. But, concerned parents can certainly raise a stink at their local schools, especially if they can demonstrate that their kids' own religious rights are being abridged. And associations like FFRF have been trying to organize responses on a larger scale; I think there is potential for more and better alliances as well. It's not just atheists ho are being walked over here, but everyone not directly a partisan for the conservative-religious cancer.

 

[TomC]

Ha ha ha...
I can't wait for a well educated teacher to have the kids open their bibles to Mt. 16:18.
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.".

Then explain that Peter was Jesus's best friend. Peter went to Rome and started Jesus's Own Church. It's now called the Roman Catholic Church.
"Now don't you kids want to go Jesus's Church? Of course you do."

Then the kids run home. "Mommy I want to be Catholic like Jesus!"
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

It's a boiling frog approach--step ever so slightly over the line, try to pretend that's not over the line, if you succeed take another little step and so on.

 

[marc]

Makes me think of an old clip from “Not Necessarily The News” where a guy, conservatively dressed stands in a field, turns to the camera “You know, I believe in only one god. …. His name is Gozron and he lives in this lake”

I hope if they get their bullshit passed then a lot of teachers will lead plenty of prayers those people will throw a fit over.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?

Wow, that's some straight up scientology level "what are your crimes" bull...

Hey man, you're the one who barged uninvited into an exchange between two other people and tried to interfere with an attempt to elicit an explanation. If you don't like me asking what your crimes are, feel free to leave your nose out of other people's business.

There needs to be no larger agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

And? Nobody said there needs to be; but that's hardly a reason to sweep under the rug the reality that it's vanishingly unlikely that there isn't a larger agenda. Who the heck objects to "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" purely as a bottom-level brute-fact fundamental moral premise that's independent of the rest of her moral sense?

The idea that you see a larger agenda admits that you understand that there can be larger agendas,

"admits", you say, as though that were a concession. That was my contention from the beginning; you're the one who got on my case over it. Since you "admit" that there can be larger agendas, why the devil do you object to my asking Ziprhead what his is?

like the one I outlined above becoming available as an attack against people like us and our children.

There's no both sides here.

Who the heck said anything about "both" sides? There are a lot more than two sides; and absolutely nobody here is arguing for the side described in the OP.

I completely laid out my agenda in fighting bull... like this.

The heck you did. But that's beside the point, since it isn't your larger agenda I asked about and you aren't qualified to tell anyone what Ziprhead's larger agenda is.

Ziprhead appears to have some objection to a Christian effort to stop protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head, to fixate instead on the supposed "right" of school officials to practice Christianity during the course of their formal duties, to indoctrinate students with Christianity, to call attempts to halt their efforts at religious coercion "persecution", and to recast supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated as bigots. I'd like him to explain the nature of his objection to that. Why does he think all that stuff is a bad thing? I'm not asking because I'm under the impression that it's actually a good thing -- of course it's a bad thing. Duh! I'm not trying to find out from you that it's a bad thing -- I'm not trying to find out anything at all from you, so your contributions explaining why you think it's a bad thing are a useless digression, so feel free to butt out. I'm trying to find out from Ziprhead why Ziprhead thinks it's a bad thing.

I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.

 

[SLD]

How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

Conservative lawmakers and judges have recast religious neutrality as anti-Christian bigotry.

slate.com

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case that was carefully engineered to return prayer to public schools. Kennedy marks an effort to overturn nearly 60 years of precedent protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head. The case erases the rights of children who wish to avoid religious coercion at school, fixating instead on the right of school officials to practice their religion during the course of their formal duties. It is the culmination of a decadeslong battle to reframe government neutrality toward religion as unconstitutional discrimination against people of faith. And it is chillingly likely to succeed.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Kennedy as a mere doctrinal shift in constitutional law, as radical as that doctrinal shift would be. This case is also the product of the Republican political campaign aimed at restoring public schools’ authority to indoctrinate students with Christianity. The campaign is on the brink of success in the courts because proponents of school prayer have perfected a tactic that reverses the victim and offender.

Today, school officials who coerce students into prayer go on the offensive, claiming that any attempt to halt their efforts at religious coercion is actually persecution of their religious beliefs. Supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated are recast as anti-Christian bigots.

It will end only when an atheist teacher starts indoctrinating students.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm trying to find out from Ziprhead why Ziprhead thinks it's a bad thing.

I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.

Are you a mind reader? I have not said one thing about the story I posted.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?

Wow, that's some straight up scientology level "what are your crimes" bull...

Hey man, you're the one who barged uninvited into an exchange between two other people and tried to interfere with an attempt to elicit an explanation. If you don't like me asking what your crimes are, feel free to leave your nose out of other people's business.

There needs to be no larger agenda besides preventing:

what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".

And? Nobody said there needs to be; but that's hardly a reason to sweep under the rug the reality that it's vanishingly unlikely that there isn't a larger agenda. Who the heck objects to "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" purely as a bottom-level brute-fact fundamental moral premise that's independent of the rest of her moral sense?

The idea that you see a larger agenda admits that you understand that there can be larger agendas,

"admits", you say, as though that were a concession. That was my contention from the beginning; you're the one who got on my case over it. Since you "admit" that there can be larger agendas, why the devil do you object to my asking Ziprhead what his is?

like the one I outlined above becoming available as an attack against people like us and our children.

There's no both sides here.

Who the heck said anything about "both" sides? There are a lot more than two sides; and absolutely nobody here is arguing for the side described in the OP.

I completely laid out my agenda in fighting bull... like this.

The heck you did. But that's beside the point, since it isn't your larger agenda I asked about and you aren't qualified to tell anyone what Ziprhead's larger agenda is.

Ziprhead appears to have some objection to a Christian effort to stop protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head, to fixate instead on the supposed "right" of school officials to practice Christianity during the course of their formal duties, to indoctrinate students with Christianity, to call attempts to halt their efforts at religious coercion "persecution", and to recast supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated as bigots. I'd like him to explain the nature of his objection to that. Why does he think all that stuff is a bad thing? I'm not asking because I'm under the impression that it's actually a good thing -- of course it's a bad thing. Duh! I'm not trying to find out from you that it's a bad thing -- I'm not trying to find out anything at all from you, so your contributions explaining why you think it's a bad thing are a useless digression, so feel free to butt out. I'm trying to find out from Ziprhead why Ziprhead thinks it's a bad thing.

I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.

So, you want to cast aspersions not even in the view that this is a bad thing, but on the person(s) you perceive incorrectly as objecting to it for reasoning you cast upon them and assume of them unilaterally.

So no, I'm not going to "butt out". It's a public form and so I'm going to "butt in" as much as I wish when I wish, as I wish, and you can just tolerate that to the extent you must on behalf of the fact that it's my right to do so.

You can either stop trying to focus an agenda against folks who, from where I stand, just don't want religious folks indoctrinating kids into bigots and you can accept that we actually really do want to discuss what can be done about this bad thing together without trying to make it into an attack on people you seem to not like... Or you can continue having your behavior described in this painfully obvious way as relates to the subject.