Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

Washington Post editors opinion: Our church-state barrier is crumbling

The editors argue:
A conservative Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order — dismissive of Americans’ privacy rights, committed to dangerous pro-gun dogmas and, as the court showed twice this month, alarmingly permissive of mixing religion and government.

The latest example comes in the case of Joseph Kennedy, a high school football assistant coach in Washington state who led prayers on the 50-yard line after games. As they got increasingly ostentatious, the school district asked him to stop. He toned down his prayers, but refused to stop using his privileged access to the 50-yard line to engage in public religious displays in the middle of an official school event while wearing team attire.

The court’s six conservatives sided with the coach, rather than the school district that tried to persuade him to perform his religious observances on his own time and without implying that the school endorsed them. In so doing, the justices practically encouraged school officials to engage in showy displays of religious practice on school grounds, arguing that doing so promotes “learning how to tolerate diverse expressive activities.” The court reached its conclusion only by ignoring massive parts of the factual record. The majority claims Mr. Kennedy’s prayers were “quiet” personal acts during a “brief lull” in his duties following football games. In fact, he was on the clock, supposed to be supervising students after games.

Until the final few games of the season, after the district had threatened to discipline him, Mr. Kennedy’s prayers were not personal, as the coach invited students and even opposing teams to join him. They were not limited to the field or the post-game “lull”; he led prayers in the locker room. His acts were not quiet; he gave religious-themed speeches as players knelt around him. . All the while, Mr. Kennedy was supposed to be supervising students in the locker room.

The justices deemed these facts irrelevant, saying the school punished Mr. Kennedy only for his conduct after the season’s final three games, following which he made no lengthy public speeches and did not lead prayers in the locker room, just silently prayed on the 50-yard line as others joined him. The coach, of course, was able to stage his religious display on restricted public property only because he was a school employee working during an official activity core to his employment. 
It is obvious the justices did not put themselves in the shoes of a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic student watching from the literal and social sidelines, facing the decision of whether to join a coach on the field or stay true to their religious or nonreligious convictions. Along with another court decision earlier this month, in which the justices ordered the state of Maine to finance tuition at religious schools under a statewide voucher program, the majority appears determined to rule in favor of those seeking to use government resources to advance their religious beliefs — and against those who object to dismantling the wall between church and state.

That lays out the neo-fascist, Christian nationalist attack on church-state separation. 

My criticism is this: Instead of writing "A conservative Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order ....", that should read "A radical right, Christian nationalist Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order ...." 

That incompetence is another example of the mainstream media (i) not seeing the situation we are in, and/or (ii) being subverted or coerced by profit demands into not seeing reality. 

I've said it before and say it again, 

the MSM is duped by the radical right and just doesn't get it.

In normal, unspun reality:



In the faux reality that radical right propaganda has convinced the mainstream media and most of the public is reality, the window is pushed far to the right:

No comments:

Post a Comment