How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[Bomb#20]

I think you mean, "It's my wild-ass guess that this guy's an atheist." Because not ONE WORD of your own link...

By "wild-ass", you're referring to the eminently reasonable assessment that a guy who is a committed outspoken revolutionary Marxist is very probably also an atheist, what with dialectical materialism being one of the central tenets of Marxism.

Or you mean, "I need for this one guy to be an atheist, in hopes of buttressing my argument, ( hint: it doesn't ) so I'm inventing that."

So, to sum up ... you're just saying stuff. Which is intellectually lazy, among other problems.

I don't need him to be an atheist; I merely hoped an example would shorten a ridiculous debate. Your impression:

"But I am most definitely under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started."​

is just silly. Teachers indoctrinate students in their opinions all the bloody time. To suppose that atheists unlike every other segment of the teacher population are above that sort of thing is to put us on a ludicrously self-congratulatory pedestal. We are normal humans like everyone else and we fall prey to the same temptations at similar rates to other people. Atheists are not a superior life-form; we're merely wrong about one fewer thing* than theists are.

(* And that's usually a result of environmental accident rather than superior intellect.)

Furthermore, just for discussion's sake, let's just theoretically say that THAT teacher, who got fired, is an atheist. We're granting that, for purposes of this topic.

How ... would that equate to your insinuation that "the indoctrination of students by atheist teachers" HAS in fact started--ie, it's not an isolated, one-off outlier type of incident, it's a pervasive, widespread movement, something that is spreading, etc.

Come again? Everything that starts, starts out as an outlier! Of course he's an outlier; of course he's a loon. So what? Kennedy the praying coach of the OP is an outlier and a loon. Gipe isn't an isolated one-off; you can find more if you go looking*. An activity doesn't have to be "a pervasive, widespread movement, something that is spreading," in order to have started. Kennedy's antics aren't spreading and they aren't nearly as pervasive and widespread as they were when I was a kid. Kennedy's antics are the last dying gasp of an ancient social control system that's hemorrhaging followers so fast people like him will be a non-issue in a couple of generations.

(* Here's one: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...XEy-B1mFSl2hGjVSeUjTpx9S0EKEQWTpbhHQEMw6CK2fJ )

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

Well, your response requires a rather complicated riposte. Let’s start with the second question first. One, I am unaware of a single incident in the public schools in the United States of a complaint against a teacher telling students that they shouldn’t be believing in god. If you have a counter example, please share it. But I looked in vain on the web for any such accusation.

You can't even find a complaint? Here's one:

Student: Teacher taught 'God is not real'

Texas school district said assignment was to encourage critical thinking, not question religious beliefs.

www.usatoday.com

(It seems the teacher who did this isn't actually an atheist but some sort of Christian-identifying agnostic.)

But as for why I believe it, it’s quite simple. For the last few decades, the Christian Right has been attacking Church State separation from the perspective that they should have the freedom to use their government positions to express their faith. And to some extent they’ve been successful. But the Supreme Court has always made it clear that government cannot differentiate between faiths. Thus if they succeed in overturning cases involving school prayer, the one caveat is that it will apply to all religions. Thus if this teacher in the case before the court is to prevail, atheists will then have the right to indoctrinate students with atheism. Presently, that right does not exist in US public schools. The religious right though is too stupid to realize this. They want to do everything they can to force students to conform to their religion only. But it won’t work if Atheists like us assert our rights. Or, as Loren put it, Satanists. Or Muslims. ... the first time this comes up. And it will.

But that doesn't make any sense. We've been down this road before. First we made them take down their Ten Commandments monuments. Then the SCOTUS said they could keep them up as long as they don't discriminate. So people put up atheist monuments and Satanist monuments and whatnot, and that didn't get the Christian Right to back down. They still put up Christian monuments. Why would this be any different? If the Christian Right has to put up with the occasional non-Christian demanding equal access to the public space, they'll just put up with it. They'll count on the power of numbers and the power of stubbornness and the power of us-vs-them tribalism to drown out competing opinions; in fact they'll probably pull Kennedy-like stunts more often in response. Why would they end it? Why would they give up ten public football team prayer spectacles in order to prevent one probably poorly-attended pro-atheism lecture?

 

[Copernicus]

The US government is specifically prohibited from supporting or inhibiting any religious institution or doctrine, so worship sessions in public schools, whether in classes or extracurricular activities, are disallowed in principle.

I agree they ought be disallowed; I am arguing that there are belief systems that I have labelled 'secular religions' that should join the ranks of the 'traditional' religions. These include asking people to utter statements about indigenous people and culture that they do not believe.

Metaphor, I don't know enough about your example to give an informed opinion of how it would come off in the US. It sounds fairly innocuous and might not be relevant to the controversy over this coach's behavior and dismissal. In my opinion, there should be no problem with classes studying various religious and superstitious beliefs around the world. The whole purpose of a public education is to prepare students to have some information about adult issues and how to cope with them. So we probably agree on more than we disagree. The issue in the US is more about the question of whether students should be subject to proselytizing and coerced religious activities. It seems that we both agree that children and teenagers should not be coerced into such activities or singled out for abuse if they refuse to participate.

 

[Metaphor]

The US government is specifically prohibited from supporting or inhibiting any religious institution or doctrine, so worship sessions in public schools, whether in classes or extracurricular activities, are disallowed in principle.

I agree they ought be disallowed; I am arguing that there are belief systems that I have labelled 'secular religions' that should join the ranks of the 'traditional' religions. These include asking people to utter statements about indigenous people and culture that they do not believe.

Metaphor, I don't know enough about your example to give an informed opinion of how it would come off in the US. It sounds fairly innocuous and might not be relevant to the controversy over this coach's behavior and dismissal. In my opinion, there should be no problem with classes studying various religious and superstitious beliefs around the world. The whole purpose of a public education is to prepare students to have some information about adult issues and how to cope with them. So we probably agree on more than we disagree. The issue in the US is more about the question of whether students should be subject to proselytizing and coerced religious activities. It seems that we both agree that children and teenagers should not be coerced into such activities or singled out for abuse if they refuse to participate.

I do agree that if the facts are that the coach was conducting prayer (not just praying, but conducting it, which are separate activities in my mind), then the school should not tolerate it and the Supreme Court should not find in his favour.

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

 

[Bomb#20]

School is built on indoctrination. All this is about is which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school.

Whoa, actual discussion? Is that allowed in this thread?

So do you have a position on which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school? Do you think the OP indoctrination is a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private.

So, given that school is built on indoctrination, some indoctrination must be appropriate, but appropriate indoctrination isn't this. So which aspect of this indoctrination is what makes it inappropriate? Is it that the beliefs being inculcated are false, or that they're unscientific, or that they're controversial, or that they're non-secular, or what? For example, suppose instead of pushing Christianity, the coach had been peddling Transcendental Meditation woo. Would that still be inappropriate?

Or is it this:

Moreover, there would be pressure on team members to participate.

Is that what makes it inappropriate?

IMO, this violates the separation of church and state.

Which is illegal. I take it, then, you're endorsing the judicial branch exercising its power to be a check and balance against the executive branch exceeding its authority by preaching inappropriate doctrine to a state-supplied audience? But on the other hand, Kennedy's a teacher, and teachers are supposed to have academic freedom. You can't have academic freedom without giving teachers some latitude on what and how to teach. So there are conflicting interests to be balanced. What determines where that line should be drawn?

This all happened in a very red state - Kentucky. Which suggests to me that it must have been pretty blatant and disruptive.

Yes; and that's probably why Kennedy thought he could get away with it.

 

[laughing dog]

School is built on indoctrination. All this is about is which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school.

Whoa, actual discussion? Is that allowed in this thread?

So do you have a position on which indoctrination is appropriate for a public school? Do you think the OP indoctrination is a good idea? If you think it's a bad idea, are you in favor of somebody doing something about it?

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private.

So, given that school is built on indoctrination, some indoctrination must be appropriate, but appropriate indoctrination isn't this. So which aspect of this indoctrination is what makes it inappropriate? Is it that the beliefs being inculcated are false, or that they're unscientific, or that they're controversial, or that they're non-secular, or what? For example, suppose instead of pushing Christianity, the coach had been peddling Transcendental Meditation woo. Would that still be inappropriate?

IMO, it is the blatant religious nature of the "woo" that violates the separation of church and state.

Or is it this:

Moreover, there would be pressure on team members to participate.

Is that what makes it inappropriate?

IMO, the implicit coercive nature of the "voluntary" prayer meeting adds to the violation of the separation of church and state. Football encourages obediance, and adherence rules and structure. Football is very much a team sport - the team and its morale is all important. That ethos encourages conformity (something many teenagers already crave - the desire to "fit in").

IMO, this violates the separation of church and state.

Which is illegal. I take it, then, you're endorsing the judicial branch exercising its power to be a check and balance against the executive branch exceeding its authority by preaching inappropriate doctrine to a state-supplied audience? But on the other hand, Kennedy's a teacher, and teachers are supposed to have academic freedom. You can't have academic freedom without giving teachers some latitude on what and how to teach. So there are conflicting interests to be balanced. What determines where that line should be drawn?

Academic freedom extends to the classroom and the subject matter: it does not permit any speech in any forum for any reason. In this case, the line is pretty thick and obvious - Christianity is not part of the curriculum for teaching football or for the functioning of football teams.

This all happened in a very red state - Kentucky. Which suggests to me that it must have been pretty blatant and disruptive.

Yes; and that's probably why Kennedy thought he could get away with it.

What is interesting here is that school district tried to work with Kennedy to find some accommodation for his desire to pray with football players, and he rejected their efforts.

From the evidence I have seen (which is limited), this coach appears as to a bull-headed zealot. IMO, the SCOTUS should have rejected his appeal as strongly as possible to send a clear and unequivocal message. IMO, we don't need more church doctrine zealots of any denomination running around in the USA spreading their faith - we need fewer of them. Or we should repeal the 1st amendment of the Constitution and get it over with.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

This is false... an intentional misrepresentation... like "All I did was flex my finger and they arrested me!!!" omitting the bit where there was a gun in my hand and my "innocent little finger flex" was actually Murder 1.
From the linked article, containing non-distorted information so as not to manipulate your impression fraudulently:

According to the district, Coach Kennedy could “engage in religious activity, including prayer, so long as it does not interfere with job responsibilities,” the activity is “physically separate from any student activity, and students [are] not . . . allowed to join such activity.”

Further, the district required that “such activity should either be non-demonstrative (i.e. not outwardly discernible as religious activity) if students are also engaged in religious conduct, or it should occur while students are not engaging in such conduct.

The coach was reprimanded for violating his employer's completely reasonable and legal rules that applied to all employees. If he was fired, it was not for praying (or "just flexing his finger"), it was for doing it in public (not only against school rules, but Christian rules as well - so his belief can't be "closely held" in any way), he was allowing students to join, AND he was doing it "demonstrably". He broke every piece of the guidelines he was given to allow his personal religious practice... as is par for the religious fucktards out there that want to piss all over everything and say "MINE!"

 

[Copernicus]

Gun Nut, Metaphor and I have been discussing this issue already. See his latest comment:

The US government is specifically prohibited from supporting or inhibiting any religious institution or doctrine, so worship sessions in public schools, whether in classes or extracurricular activities, are disallowed in principle.

I agree they ought be disallowed; I am arguing that there are belief systems that I have labelled 'secular religions' that should join the ranks of the 'traditional' religions. These include asking people to utter statements about indigenous people and culture that they do not believe.

Metaphor, I don't know enough about your example to give an informed opinion of how it would come off in the US. It sounds fairly innocuous and might not be relevant to the controversy over this coach's behavior and dismissal. In my opinion, there should be no problem with classes studying various religious and superstitious beliefs around the world. The whole purpose of a public education is to prepare students to have some information about adult issues and how to cope with them. So we probably agree on more than we disagree. The issue in the US is more about the question of whether students should be subject to proselytizing and coerced religious activities. It seems that we both agree that children and teenagers should not be coerced into such activities or singled out for abuse if they refuse to participate.

I do agree that if the facts are that the coach was conducting prayer (not just praying, but conducting it, which are separate activities in my mind), then the school should not tolerate it and the Supreme Court should not find in his favour.

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

We'll see how the matter is treated by the Supreme Court. It is already pretty much taken for granted in the US that they will strike down Roe v Wade. This is the most politically activist Supreme Court in memory, since they seem bent on reinterpreting legal precedents in a number of areas. So my fear now is that they will use the power of the court to try to reshape the political landscape, which I think is what most conservatives in the US are hoping for. In this particular case, we have a tradition going back to the US Constitution that our system be fundamentally considered a "secular government", but the Republican Party has a very strong conservative religious component in its base that continually pounds away at the theme that the US is a "Christian nation". The fear on the left is that the Supreme Court will use this particular case to try to inject religion into the secular school system. Whether that fear is justified will be revealed in how they rule on this matter, but the case itself seems crafted to hand them the opportunity.

BTW, your term  Secular religion is actually a bona fide term in some intellectual circles. It still strikes me as an oxymoron, but it is actually quite reasonable to broaden the term "religion" by merely treating it as a synonym for "strong belief system". In fact, the adjective "secular" is sometimes use by religionists as somewhat synonymous with "lay", as in "secular clergy" and "lay clergy". However, I don't think that the US constitution uses "religion" in that way or that the First Amendment ought to be used to refer to political dogmas such as communism, although there are a lot of similarities between the practice of communism and the practice of a conventional religion.

 

[laughing dog]

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

In a typical American high school in Kentucky, he'd be lucky to be alive.

 

[Copernicus]

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

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

Well, your response requires a rather complicated riposte. Let’s start with the second question first. One, I am unaware of a single incident in the public schools in the United States of a complaint against a teacher telling students that they shouldn’t be believing in god. If you have a counter example, please share it. But I looked in vain on the web for any such accusation.

You can't even find a complaint? Here's one:

Student: Teacher taught 'God is not real'

Texas school district said assignment was to encourage critical thinking, not question religious beliefs.

www.usatoday.com

(It seems the teacher who did this isn't actually an atheist but some sort of Christian-identifying agnostic.)

That's a very interesting example, but it is a case of such a complaint being lodged. I don't think that the reporter did a proper job in reporting it, because we don't actually know what the assignment was, just the assignment that the student believed was assigned. The teacher, who is reportedly a Christian, was trying to teach critical thinking, so the basic idea was sound. It probably wasn't an assignment to stop believing in God, but rather to imagine how someone would try to defend lack of belief in God. This would be a great assignment for a mock classroom debate. It was certainly not a great idea for high school, because there are less controversial subjects that one could achieve the same results with. But this was not an example of an attempt to indoctrinate students in a faith.

I myself was outed as an atheist by a teacher in high school, but it was in an English class for an honors program. The teacher was trying to teach about allegory in Huckleberry Finn, so he asked "Why do we believe in God?" (He was going for the idea that Mark Twain was using the Mississippi River as an allegory for God, which apparently was the topic of his college Masters thesis.) Nobody wanted to answer the question, so he picked on me, and I said I didn't believe in God. That caused an uproar in a high school class back in the early 1960s, although it would probably just get snickers and giggles today. One student actually got so emotional about it that she started crying. But I did learn a lot about critical thinking after that, and so did the teacher. I was later to find out that Mark Twain was a well-known religious skeptic.

 

[Metaphor]

The coach was reprimanded for violating his employer's completely reasonable and legal rules that applied to all employees. If he was fired, it was not for praying (or "just flexing his finger"), it was for doing it in public (not only against school rules, but Christian rules as well - so his belief can't be "closely held" in any way),

I'm sorry but of course his belief can be closely held. Do you think Christians don't pray together in large groups? Do you think the Bible, the big book of multiple choice, forbids public prayer? You think when Jesus prayed out loud on the mountain he was being a bad Christian?

 

[Metaphor]

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

In a typical American high school in Kentucky, he'd be lucky to be alive.

Oh yes? Are Muslim teachers routinely murdered in Kentucky for praying?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do agree that if the facts are that the coach was conducting prayer (not just praying, but conducting it, which are separate activities in my mind), then the school should not tolerate it and the Supreme Court should not find in his favour.

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

There is a big issue here--others were following his lead. He's an authority figure, this is inherently coercive. Simply going out and praying alone is highly suspect to me (he's making a spectacle of his praying), others following puts it far over the line.

 

[Metaphor]

I do agree that if the facts are that the coach was conducting prayer (not just praying, but conducting it, which are separate activities in my mind), then the school should not tolerate it and the Supreme Court should not find in his favour.

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

There is a big issue here--others were following his lead. He's an authority figure, this is inherently coercive. Simply going out and praying alone is highly suspect to me (he's making a spectacle of his praying), others following puts it far over the line.

How many people would have been coerced if he was a Muslim?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes; and that's probably why Kennedy thought he could get away with it.

I don't even think it's a matter of thinking he could get away with it. The Christians keep pushing the boundaries again and again, hoping for court wins and hoping to look persecuted.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is a big issue here--others were following his lead. He's an authority figure, this is inherently coercive. Simply going out and praying alone is highly suspect to me (he's making a spectacle of his praying), others following puts it far over the line.

So what's the remedy? If authority figures doing inherently coercive stuff to their charges is far over the line, but they do it anyway, what should be done about it?

 

[Bomb#20]

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private.

So, given that school is built on indoctrination, some indoctrination must be appropriate, but appropriate indoctrination isn't this. So which aspect of this indoctrination is what makes it inappropriate? Is it that the beliefs being inculcated are false, or that they're unscientific, or that they're controversial, or that they're non-secular, or what? For example, suppose instead of pushing Christianity, the coach had been peddling Transcendental Meditation woo. Would that still be inappropriate?

IMO, it is the blatant religious nature of the "woo" that violates the separation of church and state.

What makes some woo's nature religious, though? For example, per Wikipedia, "According to the Transcendental Meditation movement, it is a non-religious method for relaxation, stress reduction, and self-development." But the courts have held it's religious and barred public schools from teaching it. How can we tell who's right? What's the criterion for qualifying as religion?

Which is illegal. I take it, then, you're endorsing the judicial branch exercising its power to be a check and balance against the executive branch exceeding its authority by preaching inappropriate doctrine to a state-supplied audience? But on the other hand, Kennedy's a teacher, and teachers are supposed to have academic freedom. You can't have academic freedom without giving teachers some latitude on what and how to teach. So there are conflicting interests to be balanced. What determines where that line should be drawn?

Academic freedom extends to the classroom and the subject matter: it does not permit any speech in any forum for any reason. In this case, the line is pretty thick and obvious - Christianity is not part of the curriculum for teaching football or for the functioning of football teams.

That's kind of a counterintuitive standard. It seems to imply that if a teacher were leading Christian student prayer sessions in his World Religions class instead of in his football games, then that would come under the protection of academic freedom. Do you think it should?

From the evidence I have seen (which is limited), this coach appears as to a bull-headed zealot. IMO, the SCOTUS should have rejected his appeal as strongly as possible to send a clear and unequivocal message. IMO, we don't need more church doctrine zealots of any denomination running around in the USA spreading their faith - we need fewer of them. Or we should repeal the 1st amendment of the Constitution and get it over with.

The 1930s phoned; they want their legal niceties back. We don't repeal amendments by further amendments any more; we just "interpret" them into dead letters.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the football coach is wrong. It is completely inappropriate behavior. Having a "private" prayer meeting in the middle of the football field after a football match is not private.

So, given that school is built on indoctrination, some indoctrination must be appropriate, but appropriate indoctrination isn't this. So which aspect of this indoctrination is what makes it inappropriate? Is it that the beliefs being inculcated are false, or that they're unscientific, or that they're controversial, or that they're non-secular, or what? For example, suppose instead of pushing Christianity, the coach had been peddling Transcendental Meditation woo. Would that still be inappropriate?

IMO, it is the blatant religious nature of the "woo" that violates the separation of church and state.

What makes some woo's nature religious, though? For example, per Wikipedia, "According to the Transcendental Meditation movement, it is a non-religious method for relaxation, stress reduction, and self-development." But the courts have held it's religious and barred public schools from teaching it. How can we tell who's right? What's the criterion for qualifying as religion?

I will leave that to lawyers. However, that question is moot in this instance.

Which is illegal. I take it, then, you're endorsing the judicial branch exercising its power to be a check and balance against the executive branch exceeding its authority by preaching inappropriate doctrine to a state-supplied audience? But on the other hand, Kennedy's a teacher, and teachers are supposed to have academic freedom. You can't have academic freedom without giving teachers some latitude on what and how to teach. So there are conflicting interests to be balanced. What determines where that line should be drawn?

Academic freedom extends to the classroom and the subject matter: it does not permit any speech in any forum for any reason. In this case, the line is pretty thick and obvious - Christianity is not part of the curriculum for teaching football or for the functioning of football teams.

That's kind of a counterintuitive standard. It seems to imply that if a teacher were leading Christian student prayer sessions in his World Religions class instead of in his football games, then that would come under the protection of academic freedom. Do you think it should?

IMO view, since there is a difference between studying religion and practicing it, I don't think the standard is that difficult to comprehend or comply with or enforce.

 

[laughing dog]

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

In a typical American high school in Kentucky, he'd be lucky to be alive.

Oh yes? Are Muslim teachers routinely murdered in Kentucky for praying?

What kind of idiotic straw man is that?

 

[Metaphor]

I do wonder: if the coach had been a Muslim instead, and at the end of the game got out a mat and faced Mecca to pray, what differences there would have been. Certainly in a typical American public high school, he would not have had many people join him voluntarily.

In a typical American high school in Kentucky, he'd be lucky to be alive.

Oh yes? Are Muslim teachers routinely murdered in Kentucky for praying?

What kind of idiotic straw man is that?

I'm trying to understand your 'he'd be lucky to be alive' comment. Why would a Muslim teacher in Kentucky be lucky to be alive?