The Supreme Court punts on religious liberty

[anatta]

The 1st Amendment does not allow government to promote (or hinder) any religion or all religions. Allowing a prayer for each religion is just as unconstitutional as allowing a prayer for one religion. There is no "secular purpose" for allowing (or prohibiting) a religious activity. That includes reciting a prayer in school mandated by the school, putting a copy of the Ten Commandments on display..

did you contradict yourself, that not allowing prayer(s) is "hindering" the free expression thereof?

 

[AProudLefty]

did you contradict yourself, that not allowing prayer(s) is "hindering" the free expression thereof?

No one is hindering the players' free expression.

 

[Flash]

did you contradict yourself, that not allowing prayer(s) is "hindering" the free expression thereof?

No. Government cannot require or prohibit religious acts. They cannot stop a student praying in school but neither can they require a prayer be said. A law that affects religion must have a secular purpose.

 

[gemini104104]

The court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority disagreed, insisting that Kennedy’s act of praying was protected by the First Amendment.

This decision was a mistake — not because public schools should be devoid of any religious expression but because students should not feel pressure from their teachers, administrators or coaches either to be or not to be religious, let alone subscribe to a particular faith.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/03/scotus-praying-football-coach-wrong/

The irony of the decision is that it reduces religion to formal rituals. Being forced or intimidated to participate in a religion ritual, for the Court, is innocuous.

Hopefully Team Biden will punt SCOTUS at mitigating the un-American, un-Constitutional and seditious affect tRump and his repukes did to the legitimacy of SCOTUS. This is when it comes to expanding SCOTUS with a more competent team of justices versus the unqualified and illegal repuke hacked in so-called justices that are there now.

 

[saltydancin]

Years ago the Court said it was okay to have an official prayer to open a session of Congress. They called it "ceremonial."

For as long as I can remember SCOTUS "one nation under God with equal justice under law" only applies to it's Islamidiotocracy national religion of Islam medical human reproduction son of Allah Jesus the Christ pseudoscience & Islam Arab flying carpet mechanical engineering pseudoscience upheld by Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking enforcement under color of law as evidenced by those thieving National Archives purchased US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists burning "it's only a God dam piece of paper" Bush's Islam 9/11 health care plan patriot act. Must be ceremonial after more than 24 Klues Klucks duh Klans incidents setting precedent for the World Trade Center & Pentagon.

 

[saltydancin]

The 1st Amendment does not allow government to promote (or hinder) any religion or all religions. Allowing a prayer for each religion is just as unconstitutional as allowing a prayer for one religion. There is no "secular purpose" for allowing (or prohibiting) a religious activity. That includes reciting a prayer in school mandated by the school, putting a copy of the Ten Commandments on display..

Must be rational reasoning to SCOTUS Islamidiotocracy Christiananality pedophilia suicidal super ego supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court national religion where Islam "death to the infidels" flying flaming Mohammed chariots to Valhalla martyrdom for those burning "it's only a God dam piece of paper" Bush's 9/11 Islam health care plan patriot act proving Arab flying carpets existed in their Rehnquist Fourth Reichquest to prove an Islam medical human reproduction fabricated virgin Mary misnomer immaculate son of Allah Jesus the Christ conception existed with their sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement force.