Victory for Religious Freedom

[Falco Underhill]

Read about Bremerton High School football coach Joe Kennedy's inspiring story. When the Bremerton school district forbade Joe Kennedy to engage in group prayer any longer with his team after games, as was their custom, he complied.

So, after the next game,

Kennedy shook hands with the opposing players, waited until most Bremerton players were otherwise engaged, and dropped to a knee to pray. While he was silently praying, “coaches and players from the opposing team, as well as members of the general public and media, spontaneously joined [him] on the field and knelt beside him.”

Ultimately, the school district blamed Kennedy for this incident and he lost lost his job. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed the Bremerton School District in the case.

The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The result:

Supreme Court sides with former Bremerton football coach who sought to pray after games

https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/27/ka ... knee-sued/

https://www.king5.com/article/news/poli ... 5a55710a91

[temporal1]

Encouraged this happened, about an hour from Seattle. They need it.

[RZehr]

I’m happy about the decision. I’m happy to see religious freedom get a win.
But it doesn’t seem like a wise or Biblical thing for a Christian coach to fight about. But maybe it is, I’m not sure. I’m thinking about the whole praying on the public street corner thing. I am more New Testament, pray in the closet type, and less OT Daniel in the window type. Although in Daniel’s case I think it was the right thing. Maybe the coach is a Daniel.

[Josh]

I’m happy about the decision. I’m happy to see religious freedom get a win.
But it doesn’t seem like a wise or Biblical thing for a Christian coach to fight about. But maybe it is, I’m not sure. I’m thinking about the whole praying on the public street corner thing. I am more New Testament, pray in the closet type, and less OT Daniel in the window type. Although in Daniel’s case I think it was the right thing. Maybe the coach is a Daniel.

Yes, as I said in my other post, we have rights as Americans and as humans and thankfully the court affirmed four of them: self-defence, bearing the means of self defence, the right of states to restrict abortion, and the right for government employees to pray in public.

As Anabaptists I feel we are supposed to “lay down” those rights.

[Robert]

As Anabaptists I feel we are supposed to “lay down” those rights.

If they are taken away or decided for us, there there is little choice. It kind of becomes salvation by edict, or cultural salvation. I see this as very contrary to Jesus' teachings and calling.

[Josh]

As Anabaptists I feel we are supposed to “lay down” those rights.

If they are taken away or decided for us, there there is little choice. It kind of becomes salvation by edict, or cultural salvation. I see this as very contrary to Jesus' teachings and calling.

Yes. We "lay down" our rights.

But it is quite wrong and evil to deprive another person of their God-given rights that are proven in natural law.

As a Christian, I don't believe I should engage in evil speaking.

But as a Christian, I don't think I should deprive someone else of their free speech and tape their mouth shut.

[barnhart]

I'm ambivalent. No one needs a supreme court ruling to pray anywhere, the legal wrangling is about performative public religious display and demanding the right to be free from consequence, not about communion with God.

I also caution the demand for public power and elimination of restraint often has uncomfortable consequences. The rights to personal public expression can be used by other groups to advance ideas you might not like.

[Falco Underhill]

Here's the thing with this case:

This was not in any way state sanctioned prayer. These were people who simply volunteered to pray together on their own. In fact, I think the case may have been decided on a freedom of association basis. (I'll have to take a closer look at it. ) People are free to associate with whom they want to, and if they want to pray together, who is the state to tell them they can't?

This was in line with accommodationism rather that a radical separation view of church/state relations. The state can "accommodate" people praying together without making a big deal about it. There was not one bit of coercion here by the state or anyone else. This was a just a community coming together to do their own thing.

Overall, I see this as a very healthy thing.

[temporal1]

b:
I'm ambivalent. No one needs a supreme court ruling to pray anywhere, the legal wrangling is about performative public religious display and demanding the right to be free from consequence, not about communion with God.

as one who prays often, and most-anywhere, i agree, performative public displays are minor to me. but i respect others’ desires to have this. as in this case: not coerced. public acts can be an encouraging witness.

b:
I also caution the demand for public power and elimination of restraint often has uncomfortable consequences.
The rights to personal public expression can be used by other groups to advance ideas you might not like.

“might not like?” -
that’s an understatement.

In the 60’s-70’s, much ado was made on establishing (outrageous+insulting, hurtful) lib messages+displays of what PLENTY of people did not like. Words+actions. Much of it via the 1st Amendment. Burning U.S. flags, burning bras, public nudity, satanic worship, so much was deliberately thrown in the faces of anyone deemed a “square,” or “the establishment,” etc. - even when often these people were the literal parents of the insultors.

These were pretty much my privileged peers. i was dumbfounded, growing up in poverty, yet knowing to respect parents and elders, i was quietly aghast that those who had inherited so much could be so ungrateful. My peers were behaving badly against their own families+churches, all the while knowing, at any given moment, they could return to comfortable open arms.

Having experienced all that, combined with witnessing the sad legacy lived today, it seems a tiny request for Christians to hope for the privilege of an occasional prayer in public. Begrudgingly granted.

Esp considering many of those opposing were likely all-in demanding their deliberately offensive lib rights a few decades ago.

So many Christians and other conservative people, all religions or none, routinely live with egregious insults that are not only taken for granted, but protected+promoted by force of the sword. One prominent example is proliference of rainbow flags, blasphemy of God’s creation misused to celebrate Pride/pride in carnal sin. It hurts. Bad.

So. No worries about Christians being prepared to be hurt by others’ insults. It’s the everyday way of Life on earth.

[Josh]

I'm ambivalent. No one needs a supreme court ruling to pray anywhere, the legal wrangling is about performative public religious display and demanding the right to be free from consequence, not about communion with God.

I also caution the demand for public power and elimination of restraint often has uncomfortable consequences. The rights to personal public expression can be used by other groups to advance ideas you might not like.

Believe it or not, I'm actually OK with Muslims praying in public, or needing breaks from work to pray 5 times a day. Likewise, I'm OK with the local Jehovah's Witnesses setting up a stand on the sidewalk to pass out literature.

I don't think such people should automatically lose such rights just because they are government employees. And in some religious traditions, prayer is indeed a performative public religious display. My own religion isn't that way. But must I convert everyone else to Conservative Mennonitism so that I can exhort them to pray quietly and silently?