Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is ridiculous. He initiated the prayer while on the field immediately following a game that he was involved in as a coach and most of those who joined him were those under his “authority” (players). The idea that this prayer was offered outside of that is a stretch beyond crazy. This is the equivalent of saying that when the final school bell rings at the end of the day teachers are immediately private citizens and if they go to the front of the school and offer sacrifices to Baal that would be a “private act” and if students joined them that would be their choice.

But the school allowed other employees to take off their public employee hats and engage in private actions at the same time and in the same venue. The coach was denied the same opportunity because the private action he wanted to engage in was religious by nature. 

Action A is allowed and Action B is prohibited and the only difference between the two is that Action B is religious. 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely an unconstitutional animus against religion.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm. I would have thought you would have been better-read about the case than this. The case wasn't about pre-game prayers, especially ones mandated by a government body, and had nothing to do with reintroduction of religious control in government functions. <-- Unless one believes that any private religious observance is unconstitutional.

For a number of years, an assistant coach at a public high school would have a private prayer at the 50-yard line after football games. He was often joined by student athletes, who would surround him, heads bowed, at the field’s midway mark. Someone decided they didn't like this, and reported him to the school district. The SD, in an apparent concern over state establishment of religion, warned him not to pray if it would involve students. There was some tussle over whether he was obeying the district's orders (the students who joined him were voluntarily doing so on their own initiative), and they fired him. He took this to court, and it ended up with SCOTUS.

Essentially, the court's decision had these key take-aways:

1. The school district seemed to be under the mistaken impression that it had to scrub any private religious expression from the public square.
2. Bremerton School District had focused on suppressing religious expression, rather than on Free Exercise and pluralism, and Justice Gorsuch hinted as much.
3. The Founders did not countenance such a limited understanding of religious exercise, and the Court’s long-standing precedents don’t support it.

The school district was concerned that by his private prayers at the 50-yard line that this coach was violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. But the court ruled that his quiet prayers after school football games — while visible to others — in no way represented a government establishment or endorsement of religion.

Justice Gorsuch wrote: "Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks. Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided. Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s. Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike."

I know a little about establishment of religion. I spent 2 years in a Canadian high school in 1967-69. Every morning O Canada was played over the classroom annunciators while we sat in homeroom, and at the conclusion of the song, a pupil who had volunteered to do so recited the Lord's Prayer. When my family moved to England, again I was subjected to religion in public school. We had a weekly assembly in my school and we not only sang hymns (Church of England hymns, but some of them could be found in the LDS hymnbook, too), but we got little recited prayer, too. The annual Speech Day included an actual C of E clergyman who came to give a sermon. And then there were the daily lunchtimes, when the various "houses" would sit down to eat a hot lunch prepared by the school kitchen (all ages, from 12 to 18), before anyone would begin eating we always had someone say "grace", which in this case was the standard C of E "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful." It was great fun, especially after I got appointed to be the House Captain and I assigned who among the older boys would say this little "prayerlet" before the meal -- it was fun especially since when I assigned myself into the rotation I would say a "proper" blessing on the food -- at first I got peculiar looks, but eventually they got used to it. Perhaps this totally destroyed the value of the education we received at these schools.

I am sure both the Canadian and English schools no longer do this. My English stepson says that only happens now in the schools operated by the Church of England.

 

 

A private prayer does not take place in front of everyone on the 50 yard line.  This was a ploy and marketing effort plain and simple.

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. By this logic, a school principal could lead prayer as long as it ended before the bell rang in the morning. 

Not if he was using equipment that's not normally available to the public (like a PA system), nor holding the prayer in a location not generally open to the public (like in a classroom).

But if the school allows the general public to mill about the parking lot before the bell, then why would he not be able to engage in private discussions before he was on the clock? And if private discussions by members of the public are allowed in that time and place, on what constitutional basis is religious speech prohibited?

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

And for the record: I'm a free speech absolutist, not a Christian nationalist.

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A private prayer does not take place in front of everyone on the 50 yard line.  This was a ploy and marketing effort plain and simple.

Fallacy of equivocation. 

Private = secluded

Private = not by government sancction

A private prayer can indeed take place in such a highly public venue.

 

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are numerous nationalistic groups in the US, not just Christian. Should we be concerned about those, too?

Yes

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

Not if he was using equipment that's not normally available to the public (like a PA system), nor holding the prayer in a location not generally open to the public (like in a classroom).

But if the school allows the general public to mill about the parking lot before the bell, then why would he not be able to engage in private discussions before he was on the clock? And if private discussions by members of the public are allowed in that time and place, on what constitutional basis is religious speech prohibited?

How is a prayer on the field by a government employee with players under his charge “private” behavior? That’s just nuts. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, SkyRock said:

What does the Title of Liberty proclaim?

Who cares? What relevance is that to our nation and constitution?

10 hours ago, SkyRock said:

 

  If someone today held to the principles expressed in the Title of Liberty would you call them "Christian nationalist"?

Yes. If their defense of enforcing THEIR particular religion was what they were promoting which the title of liberty was doing. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. By this logic, a school principal could lead prayer as long as it ended before the bell rang in the morning. 

I think if they are going to allow prayers in school or school sports, then all voices should be heard or take a turn. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I think if they are going to allow prayers in school or school sports, then all voices should be heard or take a turn. 

That only works if you have a religiously diverse student body and faculty.

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How is a prayer on the field by a government employee with players under his charge “private” behavior? That’s just nuts. 

The field was open to the public. There were fans and family milling about the field after the game. Other public employees had taken off their public employee hats and were holding private conversations with friends and members of the community.

Was this coach to be the only member of the coaching staff that was expected to keep wearing his public employee hat? The only person who was not allowed to engage in private acts (that is, not sanctioned by the government employer)?

Again: if Act A is allowed and Act B is prohibited, and the only difference between the two is that Act B is religious, then the prohibition is suspect and quite likely wanders into impermissible discrimination against religion or speech. It is not a neutral principle. It is a content-based prohibition on speech.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[SkyRock]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

It proclaims religious liberty.  Religious liberty is not the same as Christian nationalism.  I hold to the principles of the title of liberty.  I am no Christian nationalist, if that answers your question.

I noticed that you never answered my question.  Do you intend to?

The Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, might rub Christian nationalists the wrong way.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Here is the words of the Title of Liberty:

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole."

Captain Moroni wrote it in context of a political strife, not religious strife.  He used religion and politics and family and traditions to rally people against political opponents.

By the standards of those in this thread, he would more likely be placed into the camp of a Christian nationalist than not.   

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

Fallacy of equivocation. 

Private = secluded

Private = not by government sancction

A private prayer can indeed take place in such a highly public venue.

 

 

No it can't especially given the venue.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Here is the words of the Title of Liberty:

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole."

Captain Moroni wrote it in context of a political strife, not religious strife.  He used religion and politics and family and traditions to rally people against political opponents.

By the standards of those in this thread, he would more likely be placed into the camp of a Christian nationalist than not.   

These were not just any benign political opponents.  These were Kingsmen he was up against - seeking to strip them of religious liberty, and liberty in general.  

In context, this was the principles of liberty against the principles of tyranny.  

Christian nationalists are something else entirely.  They actually seem to align more with the Kingsmen in trying to make their religion, language, culture, etc. privilliged by the government, above all others.  That is not religious liberty, that is forced religious dominance and persecution.  It is anti-liberty/freedom.  It is opposed to the principles of the gospel.

The word "nationalism" should be a dead giveaway.  Don't be deceived by the "Christian" part. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

This sounds overwhelmingly like an American problem, and almost as dangerous in its own way as the creeping secular/'progressive' totalitarianism I'm assuming it's a reaction to?

We only have the latter in our parts. I was literally just rereading Elder Maxwell's prophetic warning from 1978 on this topic:

Quote

We shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage ...

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending ...

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat’s burden, you see ...

When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?

I'm grateful for modern-day prophets who warn us of all kinds of movements (secular or 'Christian') that would rob us and/or our neighbours of essential liberties.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

The field was open to the public. There were fans and family milling about the field after the game. Other public employees had taken off their public employee hats and were holding private conversations with friends and members of the community.

Was this coach to be the only member of the coaching staff that was expected to keep wearing his public employee hat? The only person who was not allowed to engage in private acts (that is, not sanctioned by the government employer)?

Again: if Act A is allowed and Act B is prohibited, and the only difference between the two is that Act B is religious, then the prohibition is suspect and quite likely wanders into impermissible discrimination against religion or speech. It is not a neutral principle. It is a content-based prohibition on speech.

By that logic, a school teacher on his or her lunch hour could proselytize in the school cafeteria. What students are doing in the cafeteria is private behavior, and therefore an employee of the school should be able to engage in like behavior. I have a good friend who is a teacher in my high school, and he coordinates student gay-straight alliances throughout the school district. He is not allowed to use school property or work time to promote these groups, and he is prohibited from even implying he is working at the direction or sanction of the school district. Why? Because unless there is a line drawn between public and private behavior involving faculty and students, said behavior can be seen as having school/government sanction. He would likely be fired if he used a school event to recruit for his group. 

It's not about singling out religion. I'd be just as opposed if the coach had been having NuSkin meetings at the 50-yard line, though of course there's nothing in the Constitution about establishment of MLMs.

[Stormin' Mormon]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By that logic, a school teacher on his or her lunch hour could proselytize in the school cafeteria. What students are doing in the cafeteria is private behavior, and therefore an employee of the school should be able to engage in like behavior. I have a good friend who is a teacher in my high school, and he coordinates student gay-straight alliances throughout the school district. He is not allowed to use school property or work time to promote these groups, and he is prohibited from even implying he is working at the direction or sanction of the school district. Why? Because unless there is a line drawn between public and private behavior involving faculty and students, said behavior can be seen as having school/government sanction. He would likely be fired if he used a school event to recruit for his group. 

It's not about singling out religion. I'd be just as opposed if the coach had been having NuSkin meetings at the 50-yard line, though of course there's nothing in the Constitution about establishment of MLMs.

A school cafeteria is not a public forum, especially not during school hours.  How many randos wander into the cafeteria of the local high school at lunchtime to engage in ANY sort of speech? All speech from members of the public is being treated equally in the school cafeteria. 

I agree with your last statement, though.  But since the school allowed its employees to engage in SOME private speech, it could not thereafter withhold permission based on the content of the speech. 

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By that logic, a school teacher on his or her lunch hour could proselytize in the school cafeteria.

Not really. Teachers are generally still 'on the clock' during their (paid) lunch periods, so they are still acting as teachers even if they technically aren't being required to supervise students at the time.

 

[Kenngo1969]

I don't want to take @smac97's topic too far afield: Certainly, I will remove this post if he asks me to ... or, to (@Everyone Else)  , feel free to ignore it as you usually do, especially if he doesn't think it's relevant to the discussion, but ... do we have our own brand of Latter-day Saint "Christian Nationalism"?  Is it possible that the only (or the chief) difference between the two, perhaps, is that Christians of other stripes believe that they must establish the government that inheres to such an idea before He comes, whereas we believe that we must prepare the earth for His coming, whereupon He will establish the government (or at least, He will assume the government that, rightfully, is His) when He comes? 

Consider this:

Quote

 

Articles of Faith 1:10 [Emphasis added]

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

 

Consider the extensive use of the word Zion in Latter-day scripture, per the Wikipedia article on the use of the word in the Latter-day Saint movement:

Quote

The word "Zion" appears 53 times in the Book of Mormon, a key part of the Latter Day Saint canon, and 268 times in the LDS Church's version of the Doctrine and Covenants [sic] ...

Also, I think this is interesting:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-b-establishing-zion?lang=eng

Christ's Kingdom will have two world capitals once it is established fully: Zion, the New Jerusalem, Jackson County MO; and Old Jerusalem.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

A school cafeteria is not a public forum, especially not during school hours. 

But a high school football field during a high school football game is?

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But a high school football field during a high school football game is?

Not during.  After.  As a member of the public who has attended a number of football games at the local high school, I can well attest to the number of random members of the public who wander onto the field after the game.  I have done so myself to greet friends or chat with players (who were members of my seminary class).

[Rain]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That only works if you have a religiously diverse student body and faculty.

And if they are comfortable praying in public.  Some people are not comfortable being in front of others.  Some are intensely private in their religious beliefs.

It also depends on timing. If you always schedule specific religions on days where a lot of people are gone like "senior sluff day" it won't work well. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

Not during.  After.  As a member of the public who has attended a number of football games at the local high school, I can well attest to the number of random members of the public who wander onto the field after the game.  I have done so myself to greet friends or chat with players (who were members of my seminary class).

Was all the equipment picked up and the students changed out of their gear?  If not, the coach is still responsible for the players and therefore still being a coach and acting as an agent of the school, imo.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Not really. Teachers are generally still 'on the clock' during their (paid) lunch periods, so they are still acting as teachers even if they technically aren't being required to supervise students at the time.

 

The same is true of a school coach wearing a school uniform on school property at a school event where he or she is still interacting with children under his or her charge.

I used to chaperone when my son was in marching band in Texas. Technically, the band director wasn’t on the clock on the bus ride home. Would leading a prayer then have been ok?

I just believe that we are eroding well-established lines between church and state. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I used to chaperone when my son was in marching band in Texas. Technically, the band director wasn’t on the clock on the bus ride home. Would leading a prayer then have been ok?

 

Is the bus open to any member of the public who wants to ride it?  If not, then no, he can't lead a prayer there. 

If the school is allowing members of the public access and/or resources to speak, it cannot then deny the same to members of the public who would use that access or those resources for religious purposes.

When I was a teenager in Colorado in the 90's, my first two years of seminary were held in our ward meetinghouse.  But then a court case ruled that if the school was open for outside organizations to use before or after instructional hours, it could not then deny the same access to religious groups.  My last two years of seminary were then held in a Social Studies room in my high school before the school day began.

It's the same principle here.  Other members of the coaching staff were allowed to relax, let down their hair, take off their public employee hat, opine on local matters, greet personal friends and family, engage in activities outside of the purview of their employment.  After allowing that permission, it cannot then withhold the permission if the activity undertaken turns out to be religious. 

I'm not arguing for prayer in classrooms, in the cafeteria, on the school bus, on in any other specific venue.  But if the school itself decides to allow private actions or private expressions on its property or by its employees, it has very little discretion about WHICH actions or expressions it will allow.  It's all or nothing. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon