How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[Bomb#20]

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader.

Congratulations. You are an inaccurate mind reader.

Who isn't?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm curious what I'm allowed to force my employer to endure... starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it.

Do you work for the government? The Constitution says pretty much jack squat about what private employers can be forced to endure.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm curious what I'm allowed to force my employer to endure... starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it.

Do you work for the government? The Constitution says pretty much jack squat about what private employers can be forced to endure.

Nevertheless, government contractors and public corporations have to follow workplace rules set by government regulation. So a large employer might be barred from forcing employees to participate in religious ceremonies. It would be different if the employer were a religious institution. However, the current Supreme Court might take a different view of such things, unless it involved imposing Muslim or Hindu prayers on employees or watching inspirational videos produced by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious what I'm allowed to force my employer to endure... starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it.

Do you work for the government? The Constitution says pretty much jack squat about what private employers can be forced to endure.

Good point. The Constitution only says Government employees have to endure.... wait a sec...

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm curious what I'm allowed to force my employer to endure... starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it.

Do you work for the government? The Constitution says pretty much jack squat about what private employers can be forced to endure.

Good point. The Constitution only says Government employees have to endure.... wait a sec...

Well, since it says the government has to endure not establishing a state religion, that pretty much implies government employees have to endure it. Since it says the government has to endure not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, that pretty much implies government employees have to endure it.

But if you have a private employer, the constitution doesn't say your employer has to endure not establishing a company religion and it doesn't say your employer has to endure you starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it. Of course there are federal laws that have a say about whether your employer has to endure those things, and the constitution does say constitutional federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws. But the constitution doesn't really say all that clearly whether those particular federal laws are constitutional. It does say the people retain unenumerated rights, so the right to employ others while not enduring all that stuff might be among those. And it does say the states retain powers not delegated to the feds, and it's not clear that regulating what employers have to endure is one of those delegated powers. Of course one of the delegated powers was regulation of interstate commerce, but it's not clear that this means when the states ratified the constitution they were delegating the power to regulate any dang thing the federal government pleases provided it goes through the formality of intoning the magic words "interstate commerce". So it's all a big legal mess and it's not at all clear what the SCOTUS is constitutionally authorized to prohibit you from forcing your employer to endure. Welcome to the Lawyers' Full-Employment Act.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm curious what I'm allowed to force my employer to endure... starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it.

Do you work for the government? The Constitution says pretty much jack squat about what private employers can be forced to endure.

Good point. The Constitution only says Government employees have to endure.... wait a sec...

Well, since it says the government has to endure not establishing a state religion, that pretty much implies government employees have to endure it. Since it says the government has to endure not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, that pretty much implies government employees have to endure it.

But if you have a private employer, the constitution doesn't say your employer has to endure not establishing a company religion and it doesn't say your employer has to endure you starting an "individual" prayer session in the conference room, and then gathering lots of people to get involved in it. Of course there are federal laws that have a say about whether your employer has to endure those things, and the constitution does say constitutional federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws. But the constitution doesn't really say all that clearly whether those particular federal laws are constitutional. It does say the people retain unenumerated rights, so the right to employ others while not enduring all that stuff might be among those. And it does say the states retain powers not delegated to the feds, and it's not clear that regulating what employers have to endure is one of those delegated powers. Of course one of the delegated powers was regulation of interstate commerce, but it's not clear that this means when the states ratified the constitution they were delegating the power to regulate any dang thing the federal government pleases provided it goes through the formality of intoning the magic words "interstate commerce". So it's all a big legal mess and it's not at all clear what the SCOTUS is constitutionally authorized to prohibit you from forcing your employer to endure. Welcome to the Lawyers' Full-Employment Act.

According to federal law, there are restrictions on whether a company can make employees engage in religious practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 play a major role in enforcing religious neutrality in the workplace, unless, of course, it is a religion-owned business. Generally speaking, a company is required to allow reasonable accommodation for employees to observe their religious practices, but it also prohibits companies from imposing religion on employees. This Supreme Court has already weakened provisions of the Civil Rights Act, and I'm sure several justices, if not the majority, would like to weaken it further, especially when it comes to race or religion.

See, for example:

Compliance Check: Do Employers Have to Allow Time for Prayer at Work?​

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Metaphor]

There’s no law in America against being an ass, so this Walgreens clerk was entirely within his rights to behave like one. But, because of five Republicans on the Supreme Court, it now is problematic — and soon could be against the law nationwide, if Clarence Thomas gets his way — for Walgreens to fire him for “exercising his faith” when working in a drugstore.

His job is to sell stuff the pharmacy stocks. I assume his boss wants him to sell stuff the pharmacy stocks. If he can't sell stuff the pharmacy stocks, he should be fired (unless the boss wants to accommodate his selective refusal to do his job for some reason).

The same goes for Muslims who want to work at grocery stores but won't 'handle' the outside packaging of pork or alcohol because of their faith. If you can't do your job, you should be fired.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Thom Hartmann where I first heard about this one, this is part of an organized concerted effort on the part of the god botherers.

 

[Metaphor]

According to Thom Hartmann where I first heard about this one, this is part of an organized concerted effort on the part of the god botherers.

Whether it is or not, fire* the people refusing to do the job they agreed to do. Note this is not at all based on the civil rights of the customers being violated (I don't think you have any right to have somebody sell you condoms), but on the right of an employer to expect employees to do the job they are paid money to do.

*Or give them a formal warning that they will be expected to do the job they agreed to do, or they will no longer have that job.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://wapo.st/3o0EWek

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? - Gifted link above​

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to Thom Hartmann where I first heard about this one, this is part of an organized concerted effort on the part of the god botherers.

Here in Texas, this started to be a little habit years ago from the Christian fanatics. Our state legislature passed a law to prevent pharmacies from firing such jerks. Or moving them to positions where they did not wait on customers where they could pull that stunt.

 

[Copernicus]

https://wapo.st/3o0EWek

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? - Gifted link above​

That's a nice description of the nuances of the law, particularly the information that the law tolerates insincere claims and a certain amount of inconvenience and financial loss for employers. It is hard to imagine a perfect law, but the current one strikes me as a good example of how the government puts more weight on accommodating religious activities than the neutrality language in the First Amendment seems to imply. Religious doctrines often call for a certain amount of sacrifice, even voluntary martyrdom, in the faithful. For example, fasting during Lent or Ramadan is a pretty strong religious taboo that is more an inconvenience to believers than a real sacrifice. The point is that such practices are a requirement of faith to demonstrate obedience to the faith. US law seems designed to mitigate sacrifice and inconvenience to the faithful by undermining the experience of sacrifice and inconvenience that the act of faith is all about.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a right to refuse blood transfusions (which, incidentally, shortened my grandfather's life). They have a right not to salute the flag. Muslims have a right not to drink alcohol and Mormons a right not to drink Coca Cola. If those beliefs prevent them from becoming doctors, making alcohol and Coca Cola deliveries, raising flags, or selling condoms in a drugstore, then the businesses and governments that offer those services should not be required to accommodate the acts of faith that prevent them from helping the business or government to fulfill their service requirements and obligations to the public. Not being employed in such jobs may be a sacrifice that seems extremely burdensome to the individual, but it is up to an individual to decide how far he or she is willing to go to make a sacrifice on behalf of their deeply held religious convictions.

 

[Metaphor]

https://wapo.st/3o0EWek

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? - Gifted link above​

That's a nice description of the nuances of the law, particularly the information that the law tolerates insincere claims and a certain amount of inconvenience and financial loss for employers.

Not just financial loss for employers, but also an increased burden (as long as it isn't "undue") for other employees.

But the 'insincere claims' part was interesting. "Insincere" claims are bound to arise because religion is full of irrational proscriptions that you don't need to justify except to say it's "religious" (like not working on Saturday or Sunday). But why does society give deference to religious desires over any other desire? Why should religious desires be subject to reasonable accommodation but other desires don't need any consideration at all?

Why should "I want to drive my kids to soccer on Saturday mornings" or even "I want to party on Friday night and recover on Saturday" be treated as somehow less worthy of legal protection than "God doesn't want me to work on Saturday"?

At least the first two claims are actually true.

 

[Copernicus]

https://wapo.st/3o0EWek

When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? - Gifted link above​

That's a nice description of the nuances of the law, particularly the information that the law tolerates insincere claims and a certain amount of inconvenience and financial loss for employers.

Not just financial loss for employers, but also an increased burden (as long as it isn't "undue") for other employees.

But the 'insincere claims' part was interesting. "Insincere" claims are bound to arise because religion is full of irrational proscriptions that you don't need to justify except to say it's "religious" (like not working on Saturday or Sunday). But why does society give deference to religious desires over any other desire? Why should religious desires be subject to reasonable accommodation but other desires don't need any consideration at all?

Why should "I want to drive my kids to soccer on Saturday mornings" or even "I want to party on Friday night and recover on Saturday" be treated as somehow less worthy of legal protection than "God doesn't want me to work on Saturday"?

At least the first two claims are actually true.

I want to mention a personal example of how this plays out in real life from an anecdote about someone who is very close to me. She grew up in New York as a daughter whose parents were of Jewish ancestry, but whose family was essentially non-religious. New York public schools accommodated religious holidays by excusing Christian students from class on Christian holidays and Jewish students on Jewish holidays. Having a Jewish last name would have excused her from school, but she and her family decided not to claim religion as an excuse. So she had to attend school on all the religious holidays, and that made her feel singled out. Teachers and other students would often ask her why she was in school on Jewish holidays.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the movement continues (gifted).

“Our nation has lost its way in having lost a belief of a higher power,” said Christi Fraga, a Miami-Dade school board member who in May successfully proposed establishing an annual day of prayer in her district. “So in my community, there has been a cry for help — a cry to allow prayer in our schools.” Fraga added of the court’s ruling: “I hope it brings back our country to its foundation.”

Seriously, if you need fear of god in school to keep your children from doing bad things, you didn't raise your children well.

If the Michigan Department of Education or the Michigan High School Athletic Association “said they’d like to work … about how you can incorporate prayer into sports events for kids, I’d certainly take it to the [school] board to say, ‘We could help pilot this; we could try this,’ ” DeFrance said. (A spokesman for the state athletic association emailed The Washington Post, saying: “This is strictly an individual school district issue in Michigan. We have no part in this decision-making process.” A spokesman for the Education Department wrote in an email that his agency “has not sent any guidance to local school districts on this issue at this time. We have made a request of our state attorney general’s office for a review of the decision.”)

If done well, DeFrance added, coach-led prayer could yield advantages for his district’s 2,000 students, serving as a way to learn about other cultures.

Yes, you heard that right... allowing prayer will provide a way to learn about other cultures. Because that was impossible before prayer in school events was allowed. Such disingenuous bullshit.

I think it is time for Muslims, Atheists, and all the other-non Christian religious instructors and staffs to start pushing their religion on students... and hard! See just how important other people's prayers are.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

You mean like teaching evolution in public school science classes? Or why we have seeparation of church and state in American history classes or civics classes in public schools? These are things the extreme right holds to be atheist indoctrination in our Texas public schools.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

Nope. I'm a literalist. If you do not believe that the book says you must effectively lock yourself in a dark closet to pray then you have no belief that is supported by any religious text... "closely held" was not the best choice of words.... "legitimate" would be a better word.
So, you acknowledge that he was fired for repeatedly and intentionally breaking rules that were previously spelled out to him, and would like to talk about the validity of his beliefs? I know I brought it up, but as another layer of wrong on his part... not "the" layer we are talking about. Everyone knows the bible says not to do what he is doing... that isn't an opinion. Someone with more interest can link you to the passage if you are not familiar.

Matthew 6:5-6.

 

[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?

You mean like teaching evolution in public school science classes?

Holy Necromancy, Batman! Are you plowing through months-old posts looking for triggers, but then not reading the threads to see if your questions have already been answered? I gave examples upthread. No, of course not like teaching evolution. Teaching facts isn't teaching doctrine.

Or why we have seeparation of church and state in American history classes

How we got separation of church and state is a matter of record.

or civics classes in public schools?

Depends on how it's taught. This really isn't all that hard. If you tell kids what courts and juries and legislatures are, that's factual. If you feed them a pile of "social contract" theory and tell them that staying in the country constitutes consent to be ruled by a Republican/Democrat duopoly, that's indoctrination. There's a reason they call that stuff "civic religion".

These are things the extreme right holds to be atheist indoctrination in our Texas public schools.

Are you proposing that the existence of right-wingers with their heads up their asses is proof that everything the non-right does is automatically hunky-dory? What the extreme right holds is irrelevant to objectively distinguishing between fact and opinion.

 

[ZiprHead]

The story of the praying Bremerton coach keeps getting more surreal

The school district says it’s trying to rehire the former coach — after being ordered to do so — but he’s on the political circuit and hasn’t called them back, writes Danny Westneat.

www.seattletimes.com

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Bremerton assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy had the right to pray on the field, it wasn’t widely understood then that the court had also ordered the school district to give him his job back.

The day of the ruling, Fox News host Sean Hannity expressed doubts the district would follow through. But one of Kennedy’s lawyers clarified that they had no choice: “We’re ready to have that fight. If they want to defy the Supreme Court, I think they’re gonna realize they made a serious mistake.”

Kennedy was sunnier about it all.

“As soon as the school district says ‘Hey, come back,’ I am there, first flight,” he said.

So the school district has been flummoxed about what’s happened since. They complied by offering to reinstate him, they say, and now the football season is in full swing. But Kennedy is nowhere near the sidelines.

“He’s had the paperwork for his reinstatement since August 8th, and we haven’t gotten so much as a phone call,” says Karen Bevers, spokesperson for Bremerton schools.

Instead, as the Bremerton Knights were prepping for the season in August, Kennedy was up in Alaska, meeting with former Vice President Mike Pence and evangelist Franklin Graham. On the eve of the first game, which the Knights won, Kennedy was in Milwaukee being presented with an engraved .22-caliber rifle at an American Legion convention.

[...]

In 2015, he was put on paid leave near the end of the season after holding a series of prayer sessions on the field with students and state legislators. He still got paid for his full assistant coach contract, about $5,000. High school assistants often work on yearly deals, and Kennedy, at odds with the head coach and aggrieved by what had happened, never reapplied to work the 2016 season.

“He was not terminated,” Bevers said. Most of the coaching staff moved on, she said, because the head coach also retired.

This did not stop Kennedy’s lawyers from telling the Supreme Court repeatedly that he was fired.

“The record is clear that Coach Kennedy was fired for that midfield prayer,” lawyer Paul Clement told the nine justices in the first 15 seconds of the oral arguments of the case in April. The words “fired,” “fire” or “firing” were used 16 times in the hour and a half session.

It wasn’t true though. The district’s lawyers tried to correct the record, to no avail.

“You can’t sue them for failing to rehire you if you didn’t apply,” one lawyer, Mercer Island’s Michael Tierney, argued during a lower court session. “The District didn’t get an application from him, had four positions to fill and filled them with people who had applied. It didn’t fail to rehire him.”

The Supreme Court simply ignored this inconvenient fact — along with a host of others. At one point during oral arguments, as a different school district attorney was saying the narrative that had been spun didn’t fit with the facts — that the coach’s prayers were neither silent nor solitary, nor was he fired — Justice Samuel Alito interrupted him, saying “I know that you want to make this very complicated.”

Alito persisted in asking about the coach being fired — six times he said it, to the point that the lawyer finally corrected him. Which is a touchy thing to do with a Supreme Court justice.

“It’s not a question of firing, and in fact, he was put on paid leave,” the lawyer pleaded, fruitlessly, to Alito.