Another SCOTUS decision on religious liberty.

[sunstoned]

On 6/27/2022 at 5:26 PM, smac97 said:

When it comes to Free Speech, I'm okay with cans of worms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Free speech?  How about Florida where books are being banned and you can't say gay.  What would people think if that coach was praying Satan?  There is a reason the founding fathers put checks in place to make sure religion and state stayed separate.   The SCOTUS  is devolving into just another alt-right political entity. They are losing credibility.  

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not worried about being “in your face”. The people on the sidelines probably don’t care that much. It is not as if they are kneeling for racial equality or some other deviant cause that inflames crowds and viewers into hysterics. No, instead my main concern is the coercive effect it has on the team members. The coach has a lot of power over the kids. Imagine if instead the coach prayed to Mecca and three quarters of the team joined him. Would this be seen as a simple and sincere expression of faith or would Christian parents start complaining to school officials?

Yes, and what about the player who does not want to be part of the prayer circle.  What kind of push back would he get from teachers/students. Would he still have his starting position next week?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Quote

When it comes to Free Speech, I'm okay with cans of worms.

Free speech?  How about Florida where books are being banned and you can't say gay. 

Which "books" are being banned?  You mean the sexually explicit ones being given to elementary school kids?

There will always be judgment calls needed for stuff like this.  Broad tropes and caricatures don't help, regardless which side is using them.

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

What would people think if that coach was praying Satan? 

Well, nobody would try to use the Establishment Clause to get him fired, I bet.  That's a maneuver that seems to be restricted to punishing Christians.

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There is a reason the founding fathers put checks in place to make sure religion and state stayed separate.

I am grateful there is no "state" religion.

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The SCOTUS  is devolving into just another alt-right political entity. They are losing credibility.  

SCOTUS just created the means whereby liberal states like California and New York can craft whatever abortion laws they like.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Obehave said:

Why are you talking about this? Does it really matter to you?

I am interested in how people think. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Me too, which is why I asked if and then why this line of questions matters to you. 

I traced it back to Teancum. Interesting.

You tend to speak in absolutes.  It was your comment about allowing total freedom of public practice of religion that triggered my questioning.

”people should have total freedom to express their religious beliefs either in public”

Edited June 29, 2022 by Calm

[Ragerunner]

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think this is interesting.  The judge profiled here serves on the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling the Supreme Court overturned.  I'm not sure I agree with everything he says, but I do think his perspective is worth considering seriously.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/6/27/23171027/a-good-judge-of-character-milan-smith-jr-george-w-bush-court-partisanship-school-prayer

Thank you for the link. Here is a quote from Judge Milan Smith Jr (LDS for the recorded). 

“I personally find it more than a little ironic that Kennedy’s ‘everybody watch me pray’ staged public prayers (that spawned this multi-year litigation) so clearly flout the instructions found in the Sermon on the Mount on the appropriate way to pray.” That, among other reasons, led Smith to what would surely be labeled as a “liberal” conclusion by the current cultural binary. But in Smith’s eyes, his Latter-day Saint faith was no impediment to this ruling. Rather, it offered him a very good view of why siding with Kennedy could actually be bad for religious freedom. “If somebody were requiring our children to study Buddhism or to recite the Quran, we would not be happy with that,” he says. And the same would be true of a Buddhist parent, for example, whose child was required to participate in Christianity in public school. “

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

He is praying on his own.  The school is not telling him to pray nor is he demanding anyone pray with him. 

In a very public way.  On school property.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

so clearly flout the instructions found in the Sermon on the Mount on the appropriate way to pray

This occurred to me as well.  I am wondering what those who choose to do it in public view use to base their choice on scripturally (assuming here they do).

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I said there is some opposition to that idea after Teancum said "it is amazing to me that the pious complain that their religious freedom s under attack".

Sounds like maybe you were trying to find out why?

No, I was just interested in whether you really wanted total freedom for public worship.

[mbh26]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:46 PM, Teancum said:

Is this free speech or freedom of religion?  And from religion.

 

If you can prohibit people from praying in public, how long until they outlaw missionary work or bearing your testimony?  It seems to me that it would already be that way if HRC were elected president and Sotomayor ruled the supreme court.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I said there is some opposition to that idea after Teancum said "it is amazing to me that the pious complain that their religious freedom s under attack".

Is is still amazing to me. It seems to me that especially the religious right is being quite successful in ramming their beliefs and religious based morals down the public's throat.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Sounds like maybe you were trying to find out why?

 

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

If you can prohibit people from praying in public,

Well is is not eliminating people praying in public but as a school which is a government body.  

15 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

 

 

how long until they outlaw missionary work or bearing your testimony?  It seems to me that it would already be that way if HRC were elected president and Sotomayor ruled the supreme court.  

I highly doubt it.

[mbh26]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well is is not eliminating people praying in public but as a school which is a government body.  

I highly doubt it.

His prayer was after the game was over.  Nobody was forced to pray with the coach nor to stay and watch it.  

Edited June 29, 2022 by mbh26

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't help but notice the substantial concern in some quarters for covert "pressure" on students to conform to a teacher's opinions/expectations (that's not an unreasonable concern, BTW), but there seems to be little concern in about overt, plain-as-day "pressure" on students to conform as to LGBTQ advocacy (also not an unreasonable concern).

Sure would be great if we could just have teachers stick to teaching substantive topics and skills to students, with minimal incursions into teachers using their positions to politick, ideologically indoctrinate, presume to "teach" kids about matters of sexuality (a topic which often seems rather far afield from the province of a teacher hired to teach English, history, art, etc.). 

I grew up in Utah County (American Fork and Highland).  IIRC, 85% of the student body at my high school was enrolled in seminary.  With one notable exception, none of my teachers noticeably imported their sociopolitical views into classroom instruction.  My math teacher taught math.  My English teacher taught us reading and writing and grammar and such.  My biology teacher taught about cellular division, Punnett squares, and so on.  My Ancient Civilizations teacher taught that subject.  In hindsight, I can honestly say that I had no idea then, and do not now know, the sociopolitical preferences, ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. of almost all of my junior high / high school teachers.  And I think my education was the better for it.

The "one notable exception" was that my band teacher allowed the Marching Band to gather for a group prayer just prior to a competition.  We also had an unofficial song we listened to and sang along with after the last performance each year, "Friends (are Friends Forever)," which has some plainly religious lyrics.  My recollection is that the band teacher did not organize these things, nor did he seem to participate.  While these are good memories for me, in retrospect I could see how they might have made some students uncomfortable.  I do not, however, see them as having implicated the Establishment Clause.

I am all for what you say above. Teach your topic.  Keep your religion, sexual preferences, political agendas out of the classroom.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but not for the reason you think.  I think the "outcome" would have been that a Muslim teacher would not have been fired or disciplined in the first place.  Mr. Kennedy, though, is a Christian, who are in some quarters of society treated with a particularized disdain and animosity reserved specifically for them.  I surmise that "woke" school district officials would never disclipline a Muslim employee for publicly expressing religious speech, nor would they discipline an employee for expressing speech advocating LGBTQ issues.  

I do not agree at all. I think members of the community would have protested avidly.  As for your comment re woke well meh.  That is just a word the right uses to demonize anything the disagree with. It has replaced the term politically correct. The word woke is meaningless.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which "books" are being banned?  You mean the sexually explicit ones being given to elementary school kids?

Math books

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's a maneuver that seems to be restricted to punishing Christians.

You really do have a persecution complex don't you.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Yes, but not for the reason you think.  I think the "outcome" would have been that a Muslim teacher would not have been fired or disciplined in the first place.  Mr. Kennedy, though, is a Christian, who are in some quarters of society treated with a particularized disdain and animosity reserved specifically for them.  I surmise that "woke" school district officials would never disclipline a Muslim employee for publicly expressing religious speech, nor would they discipline an employee for expressing speech advocating LGBTQ issues.  

I do not agree at all.

That is certainly your prerogative.  We're speaking hypothetically, after all.

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think members of the community would have protested avidly. 

I wasn't speaking of the community.  I was speaking of state employees.

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As for your comment re woke well meh.  That is just a word the right uses to demonize anything the disagree with.

I think "ridicule" and/or "criticize" would be more apt than "demonize."  "The right" did not formulate the word or concept, after all.  See here:

Quote

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
...
By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context.
...

Among American conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult.^[1][4][46] In this pejorative sense, woke means "following an intolerant and moralising ideology."^[19] British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock "overrighteous liberalism".^[47] Romano says that on the American right, "'woke' – like its cousin 'canceled' – bespeaks 'political correctness' gone awry".^[4]

Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically,^[4][48] implying that "wokeness" is an insincere form of performative activism.^[46][4] Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems.^[48] Linguist and social critic John McWhorter argues that the history of woke is similar to that of politically correct, another term once used self-descriptively by the left which was appropriated by the right as an insult, in a process similar to the euphemism treadmill.^[2]

Yep.

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It has replaced the term politically correct. The word woke is meaningless.

From above: "{T}he history of woke is similar to that of politically correct, another term once used self-descriptively by the left which was appropriated by the right as an insult."

As for my use, though, I was actually intending it to be descriptive and somewhat critical.  Self-described "woke" ideology has some real problems with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This occurred to me as well.  I am wondering what those who choose to do it in public view use to base their choice on scripturally (assuming here they do).

Did you bow your head and pray over your dormitory or Cougar Eat food at BYU?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am all for what you say above. Teach your topic.  Keep your religion, sexual preferences, political agendas out of the classroom.

I spent several years (five total) teaching at a local univeristy (Utah Valley University).  I was teaching courses on the law (Business Law, Intro to American Law, Legal Research and Writing, etc.).  I was told when I first started there by a friend that I would have a better time if I just stuck to the subject matter and avoided digressions into off-topic matters.  That made sense to me, so I made a specific commitment to myself that I would do as you say here and keep most or all of my personal beliefs/opinions to myself, particularly as to controversial topics.  I figured I was being paid to teach undergraduates about how the law and the legal system work, not to pontificate about socially trendy topics. 

Having made that specific commitment, abiding by it was actually quite easy.  But a few weird things happened. 

First, my students often seemed to expect me to delve into social/political issues (which usually had little or nothing to do with the subject matter of the course I was teaching), and a few even became irritated when I declined to do so or re-directed class discussion back to the coursework.  To me it seemed like they had sort of been conditioned to expect their professors/instructors weigh in on these things. 

Second, I got the impression that some students even seemed to prefer talking about such issues instead of understanding concepts like "res judicata," "agency authority," and "interestate commerce."  Some of this was, I think, attributable to students wanting to do as little work as possible.  Another factor was that the topics I was assigned to teach were often, well, difficult to grasp by, and/or not particularly interesting to, kids in their teens and early twenties (it was hard to spice up a two-week introduction to . . . West's Topic and Key Number system!).  But yet another factor was, I think, that some students seemed genuinely annoyed that they were being called upon to study and focus and do homework relating to the coursework (such as drafting a legal memo about a hypothetical defamation claim), as opposed to chit-chatting about movies, current events, politics, etc.  I think these students viewed the coursework almost as a sideshow.

Third, the university itself also had some rather, shall we say, "unanticipated" expectations about how instructors are supposed to teach.  I spent two of my five years at UVU as a full-time instructor (no tenure, just two back-to-back one-year contracts).  Prior to starting to work there full-time I had to attend a week-long retreat for new hires at UVU's remote campus near Heber City.  During one of the training sessions, someone from the university (presumably from HR) gave a presentation about how the university had a goal and expectation that every course taught at UVU should include some reference to and incorporation of "social justice" (yes, she actually used this very phrase, many times over).  And she went to particular lengths to emphasize that not only should every course incorporate "social justice," but every single scheduled class meeting should include it.  For example, I was teaching a section of "Business Law" worth three credits, which met three times each week for an hour each.  The HR lady said that each and every one of those hour-long meetings, each and every "lesson," should incorporate some aspect of "social justice."  She provided a very broad and bland definition of what "social justice" was intended to mean (by the University), but there was zero explanation as to how to go about adding it into each and every lesson.

I was, candidly, pretty surprised that UVU would explicitly impose such an expectation/requirement.  It is a state school, paid for by tax dollars.  It seemed odd that it would specifically instruct new hires to incorporate what I think most people would consider to be a politically partisan ideology into each and every course taught.  But more to the point, it just seemed weird.  It is hard enough to formulate lesson plans, homework assignments, testing modules, etc. in a way that is both effective and interesting (particularly for my assigned classes like "Legal Research and Writing," which includes a lot of important-but-boring stuff), whicl also being required to tack on to each and every lesson some sort of "social justice" message or talking point seemed . . . forced.  Contrived.  

Further, the deliberately vague/coy approach to "social justice" taken by the HR lady was mildly frustrating to me (I was a "new hire" but I had already been teaching at UVU for a few years as an adjunct).  Its meaning is not self-evident:

Quote

Michael Novak argues that social justice has seldom been adequately defined, arguing:

[W]hole books and treatises have been written about social justice without ever defining it. It is allowed to float in the air as if everyone will recognize an instance of it when it appears. This vagueness seems indispensable. The minute one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties. It becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, "We need a law against that." In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion.^[92]

I suspected that the Powers-that-Be at UVU wanted teachers to drench all courses in "social justice" ideology and talking points (essentially, leftist indoctrination/inculcation), but that they also recognized that doing so explicitly (such as by coherently defining what they meant by "social justice") would draw the ire of some portions of the legislature, which controls UVU's pursestrings.  So, I surmised, the vagueness about "social justice" was deliberate, and was there for "plausible deniability" purposes.

Alternatively, I could have been totally off in my suspicions.  Perhaps the emphasis on incorporating "social justice" was just a favorite talking point by some HR bureaucrat or one of UVU's innumerable "Vice President of ___________" functionaries.  I guess I'll never know.  I went on to teach for a few more years, during which I made some half-hearted attempts to raise discussions about current events, which is how I interpreted and applied the "social justice" mandate.  I found it to be a waste of time and a distraction, so I gave up on it pretty quickly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 29, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did you bow your head and pray over your dormitory or Cougar Eat food at BYU?

Not quite the same when that is where I get the food and I don’t take it somewhere else to eat.  They have at least two options, in the locker room or on the field.
 

But I don’t have a problem with it, it just surprises me some given the scripture.  I would have thought that would lead them to holding the prayer in the locker room.  Less likely to get disruptive noises as well.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further, the deliberately vague/coy approach to "social justice" taken by the HR lady was mildly frustrating to me (I was a "new hire" but I had already been teaching at UVU for a few years as an adjunct).  Its meaning is not self-evident:

Irony died a few years ago but it is nice to see that it still does the zombie thing every so often.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspected that the Powers-that-Be at UVU wanted teachers to drench all courses in "social justice" ideology and talking points (essentially, leftist indoctrination/inculcation), but that they also recognized that doing so explicitly (such as by coherently defining what they meant by "social justice") would draw the ire of some portions of the legislature, which controls UVU's pursestrings.  So, I surmised, the vagueness about "social justice" was deliberate, and was there for "plausible deniability" purposes.

 

What years were these?  I will ask my husband, the UVU prof, if he was given more details than you were.  He has been working there since 2003, but has to attend those meetings as well, though I believe they take an afternoon rather than a week…though I assume that part of your orientation didn’t take that long.

The instructions sound similar to how my Logic professor described professors getting instructed to include teaching the gospel in every course at BYU when I was there in the late 70’s and early 80’s.  Think that class was ‘81.

[MiserereNobis]

One, of many, reasons why I love teaching English in the high school is that we can talk about anything in English class. Literature covers the spectrum of human experience, so we end up talking about, well, the spectrum of human experience. Add non-fiction to the list and now we're covering everything. Heck, last week (I'm teaching summer school) we had a good discussion of Einstein's General Relativity, complete with terrible drawings on the board by me. Why? We were reading an article by a Native American called "A Vision Beyond Time and Place" and we needed to figure out what exactly time and place are.

I do cover "social justice" because issues of racism, sexism, etc., show up all over the place in literature. How could we study Hamlet and not discuss his misogyny? Or how Twain satirizes racism in Huck Finn? Or the oppression of women in basically anything written by Kate Chopin? On and on.

The only complaint I've received from a parent about my curriculum is when an atheist complained to the superintendent that I shouldn't require AP students to read sections of the Bible as part of their summer reading. No-one seemed to mind that I was equally emphasizing the Greek religion by having them read mythology, too. (oh, and there was that one math professor that sent me a strongly worded complaint when I jokingly wrote a sonnet in the weekly announcements that made fun of math, but that wasn't about curriculum)

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There is a reason the founding fathers put checks in place to make sure religion and state stayed separate.  

DISFAVORING religion is just as much a breach of the separation of church and state as would be FAVORING religion.  You can't have it both ways.  That essential separation must encompass undue entanglement of any kind, either in favor of or opposed to. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.

Neutral principles and rules, ones that apply regardless of the religious content or identity of its subjects, are the only way to preserve a proper separation of Church and state, one that neither favors nor disfavors religion.