The prayer scare and beyond

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

A half century ago, those who were not religious tended not to be anti-religious, so they had no impact on the faithful. That's changed. With almost three in ten Americans not adhering to any religion, there has been an increase in secular militancy, the likes of which we have never seen before in this country.

It's not just the increase in the "nones" that is troubling (those who answer "none" when asked what their religious affiliation is), it's the changing cultural milieu that is a problem. We can thank the ruling class –the elites who command our most important institutions—for this development. Their hostility to religion is so strong that they even object to people praying, or talking about religion, in public.

A high school student from Plainwell, Michigan was suspended for three days this year when he was caught talking to another student about religion on school property. The conversation was private and there was no attempt at proselytizing: the student who was engaged in dialogue shared the convictions of the student who opened the conversation. 

The suspended student says that he was told by a teacher that he must stop talking about his Christian religion with other students for fear of hurting their feelings. Those who might overhear their commentary, he was informed, might be offended or feel unsafe. Furthermore, he was told that it was his responsibility to contact school officials if he heard about hurtful comments made by other students. His case is now in federal court. 

A year ago, an off-duty police officer in Louisville, Kentucky was suspended for four months for praying outside an abortion clinic. He stopped to pray with his father, who was part of a pro-life group. He was wearing his police uniform at the time but tried to cover it up with his coat. His lawyer said the cop did not engage in political activity and prayed quietly outside the facility. He recently won a settlement from Louisville of $75,000. 

In a suburb of Seattle, a high school football coach was fired for engaging in voluntary silent prayer with his players after games. The school told him he should have prayed in a school-hall closet or the press box—that way he would not be seen by other students—and not on the 50-yard-line. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear his case. 

Ironically, the first person I ever met who exhibited a prayer scare was the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. I interviewed him in his home in New York City in 1978 (it was part of my New York University Ph.D. dissertation). Here is the exchange (it can be found in my first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union): 

"Donohue: The ACLU has even gone so far as to deny the right of people to voluntarily take the time during the day, as a schoolchild, to say a prayer. 

Baldwin: Not on school time. 

Donohue: Well, whose rights are being infringed upon if there is a silent prayer voluntarily said by a student? 

Baldwin: If they don't say anything? You mean if they don't---- 

Donohue: Right. Are you afraid they are going to proselytize the rest of the class? 

Baldwin: Well, they tried to get around it. They've tried to get around it even further than you by calling it meditation.

Donohue: What's wrong with that? 

Baldwin: You don't say anything about God or religion or anything. I suppose you can get by with that but it's a subterfuge, because the implication is that you're meditating about the hereafter or God or something. 

Donohue: Well, what's wrong with that? Doesn't a person have the right to do that? Or to meditate about popcorn for that matter? 

Baldwin: I suppose that—it sounds very silly to me because it looks like an obvious evasion of the constitutional provision." 

In the three current aforementioned cases, and the Baldwin one, there is something going on here that transcends any alleged constitutional problem. 

It's ironic: These people accuse religious Americans, especially those who talk about religion in public, or pray in public, as being irrational, yet their prayer scare makes no rational sense. What are they really afraid of? 

The cancel culture is more than just about speech—it's about religious thoughts. These mind-control freaks are beyond weird. Indeed, they are a danger to a free society.

Abortionist: If We Kill More Babies, Fewer People Will be Poor - LifeNews.com

Abortionist: If We Kill More Babies, Fewer People Will be Poor - LifeNews.com: A Florida abortionist complained Monday that banning the killing of unborn babies in abortions after 15 weeks would “hurt families” financially. In a letter to the editor at the Florida Times-Union, Kanthi Dhaduvai, an abortionist with Physicians for Reproductive Health, made a financial argument in support of abortions. She objected to a bill moving through the state […]

Allowing non-citizens to vote

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – You would think that after the mini-civil war we had in the wake of the 2020 election, the winners would be content to leave well enough alone. Alas, that was not the case. New York City Democrats, as you know, have now changed the municipal code to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

We might be led to wonder how many of those “night flights” that the Biden administration has been conducting from the Southern Border relocating those who have just crossed the Rio Grande might end up in the Big Apple. But, I digress.

The new law applies only to those who are legally in the United States who meet all other voting requirements, and have been a resident of the city for at least 30 days. Of course this begs whether the “night flight” travelers are considered to be here legally, but that question will have to wait for another day.

The law was passed by the city council last December 9, and was deemed approved on January 8 when neither the outgoing mayor, nor the new mayor vetoed it. According to my research, New York joins at least 15 other cities in the country that allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

Not so fast, however. There are at least two lawsuits in state court to kill the New York law. Both cite legal and procedural grounds to block the law’s enforcement. One is from a group of Republican officeholders, including one Democrat, the Conservative Party of New York, the state and national Republican Parties, and at least four foreign-born naturalized citizens.

The other was filed on behalf of a group of black voters claiming the law, in addition to violating the state’s constitution and voting laws, also violates numerous civil rights laws designed to protect minority voting rights. In referring to the city council members who supported the law, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said:

“They explicitly used race as a factor of demarking the voter groups that they wanted to give this privilege to and that is a direct violation of the 15th Amendment.”
Blackwell’s group, an election integrity organization, Public Interest League Foundation, cited several statements made by the law’s sponsors that were flagged as racist reasons for the adoption of the bill. The Fifteenth Amendment, they argue, does not permit laws that might curb the rights of voters that is done for any racial purpose.

“[The law] violates the Fifteenth Amendment . . . because it was adopted with an impermissible racial intent; as well as the explicit intent of its sponsors to increase voting strength of racial subgroups while simultaneously decreasing the voting strength of other racial groups…[it was] enacted with the impermissible racial purpose of intentionally abridging the voting strength of black voters and other racial groups in New York City,” the suit alleged.

In support of its claim, the lawsuit offers statements by several of the council members to that exact point. Such as one by council member Ydanis Rodriguez, who, while debating the bill, switched to Spanish and stated the bill would increase the power of Hispanics and Asians; and who chastised white men who “fight to preserve their power.”
Other comments from members were also cited, such as that of Council President Laurie Cumbo who said, “This is going to be a great win for the ethnic groups that are going to be the highest number in the City of New York. . . . We’re all here to support our ethnic groups, and we’re all here to make sure that we all win. . . . I’m clear how the Dominican Republic community will benefit, but not the African-American community…”
The suit argues, citing numerous Supreme Court and appellate cases:

“Election procedures that are facially neutral violate the Fifteenth Amendment if they are adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose [cite omitted]. ‘Racial discrimination need only be one purpose, and not even a primary purpose, of an official act’ in order to violate the prohibitions on election procedures enacted with a racially discriminatory intent [cites omitted].”

“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘Discriminatory intent is simply not amenable to calibration. Either it is a factor that has influenced a legislative choice or it is not’ [cite omitted]. Once a racial intent is demonstrated, it is no defense to claim the same law would have been enacted regardless of the racially discriminatory motive [cite omitted]. If race played any role at all in the enactment of an election procedure, the procedure violates the Fifteenth Amendment and dooms the procedure.”

Continuing, “Proof of racial animus or racial hatred is not necessary to prove an unconstitutional racial intent in enacting an election procedure. Actions taken with the intent of effectuating a disproportionately negative impact on a racial group are violative of the intent standard of the Fifteenth Amendment [cite omitted].”
The suit also noted that the 800,000 non-citizens authorized to vote by this law would make up 15 percent of the total voters in the city. “This is greater than the margin of victory in many municipal elections,” it said.

In announcing the “Republican” suit, GOP National Chairman Ronna McDaniel said, “American elections should be decided by American citizens. If Democrats can subvert elections this flagrantly in America’s largest city, they can do it anywhere.”

The Republican suit focuses on the citizenship question, as the first suit does, but also goes into other specific statutory provisions that it claims are violated by the law. One, in particular, is a provision contained in the Home Rule section of the state law that requires a public referendum if a municipality wishes to change “the method of nominating, electing, or removing any elected official.”

The cases were both filed in Richmond County. It remains to be seen if the cases will be consolidated. It also remains to be seen whether the New York courts will move fast enough to have a legal answer by November. I should also note that both are filed in state — not federal — court so we could have another round of arguments before this is all settled.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Religion Clause: Suit By Jewish And Catholic Plaintiffs Challenge "...

Religion Clause: Suit By Jewish And Catholic Plaintiffs Challenge "...: A suit raising 1st and 14th Amendment claims was filed this week in a New York federal district court by five Orthodox Jews (including a rab...

Religion Clause: Supreme Court Refuses To Enjoin NYC Vaccine Mandat...

Religion Clause: Supreme Court Refuses To Enjoin NYC Vaccine Mandat...: Acting on an Emergency Application  to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a group of New York City teachers, Justice Sotomayor, in Keil v. City...

This week’s Faith On Trial program

This week Deacon Mike and Gina were joined by Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for First

Liberty institute who have been defending Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon firm that was forced out of business by the state for refusing, on religious grounds, to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The case has been through many twists and turns and the full program can be found here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/206850e8/continuing-saga-of-sweet-cakes-by-melissa-21022

Faith On Trial is heard every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 Adel, and 90.9 Creston, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can listen to prior programs that you may have missed.

Biden is not running the White House

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

If ever we needed definitive proof that Joe Biden is not running the White House, it was laid bare when he came to the defense of sexual engineers in the schools.

On February 8, he tweeted, "I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community—especially kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill—to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are."

The "hateful bill" is a Florida bill that says schools "may not encourage discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."

In other words, Biden wants little kids to learn from adults that they can change their sex: boys should learn that they can become girls, and vice versa. Eventually, this will mean using puberty blockers and undergoing genital mutilation, something which our "devout Catholic" president finds to be perfectly acceptable. It will also mean that biological boys can use the same restrooms as the girls. He is okay with that, too.  

So if he is happy with this madness, isn't this proof that he is in charge? No. He would never write about LGBTQI+ people. Someone else did that.

To be specific, does anyone really believe that Biden knows what the "I" stands for, or what the "+" means?

That seals it—he is being exploited by left-wing zealots in the White House, and everyone, including his wife, knows it. Everyone but Joe, that is.

This Thursday (2-10) on Faith On Trial

Most everybody probably remembers the saga of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. When the business refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony it seemed like the entire State of Oregon came after the business with lawsuits and fines ($13,000). Sweet Cakes took its case to the U. S. Supreme Court where it was returned to

Stephanie Taub.

the state courts for reconsideration in light of other Supreme Court rulings, notably that of Masterpiece Cakeshop in which a similar refusal was upheld as legal. Oregon courts repeated their earlier position leaving Sweet Cakes to go back to the Supreme Court where things are pending. Thursday, one of the attorneys working on the case from First Liberty, Stephanie Taub, will join Deacon Mike and Gina for a discussion of the case.

Faith On Trial is heard every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 Adel, and 90.9 Creston, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can listen to prior programs that you may have missed.

Guess what happened at school today?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Apparently,  at a Michigan high school, school authorities have taken the position that even if a student is speaking in private, either in-person or by text, if that conversation can be heard by an eavesdropper who might be offended, the student can be suspended from school.

And adding to the student’s burden, while he is allowed to have his own religious and political views, they cannot be expressed on any social media platform.

You see, at this particular school, there is no such thing as free speech. At least until the lawyers finish with it.

According to the federal lawsuit filed by the Great Lake Justice Center in Lansing, Mich., on behalf of the student’s parents, their son was a typical high school junior; a member of the band and the football team, a good student, and a “great kid,” as even the school administrators conceded.

So what was the problem? Well, in this era of woke culture and overbearing and — quite frankly — controlling school administrators, it’s not hard to see how the plaintiffs’ scenario plays out.

The young student involved, David Stout, was expressing his Christian beliefs in a text message with a friend. According to the lawsuit, one such conversation was started when another friend texted David for his opinion on the subject of homosexuality. David responded via text. However, school authorities were concerned that the texting might have occurred on school property where it could be seen or overheard (a text message, really?) by someone who might be offended by David’s reply.

According to the lawsuit, the school’s band director told David that “because the school is a public place, [David] could not express his Christian beliefs or political opinions in private conversations, for the very reason that someone overhearing such beliefs and opinions could be hurt or offended.”

He was also accused of not objecting to and possibly laughing at a racially insensitive joke, and by not reporting same to school authorities, he was “stealing others’ happiness.”

When the student told the band director that he “felt all of this was very one-sided and a method to shame, intimidate, and silence conversations about Christians,” the band director “admitted that [David’s] observation was correct.”

The matters came to a head when David was suspended for three days and told he could no longer speak of or text anything about his religious or political beliefs on school grounds, or present his views on social media, on or off campus.

David A. Kallman, David’s attorney, said in a press statement: “My client’s religious speech and beliefs should be treated with tolerance and respect. Public schools may not violate the Constitution and enforce a heckler’s veto of student speech. Nothing David did caused any disruption or problem at the school. He has the right to express his opinion in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs, without vilification or punishment from the government for holding to those beliefs.”

The petition claims the school district, Plainwell Community, and several administrators, including the principal, assistant principal, and two band directors, have violated David’s First Amendment Rights of free speech and religious expression; and companion provisions of the state constitution as well as several state and federal laws.

A second federal lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia by another Michigan firm, the American Freedom Law Center, against the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. The gist of the complaint is that Garland’s recent announcement that the Justice Department will treat complaints to school boards as “threats” chills their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The suit was brought on behalf of parents in Salina, Mich., and Loudoun County, Va.

The lawsuit contends: “America’s public schools are failing because ‘progressive’ school officials are more concerned with promoting a particular agenda than properly educating the children under their charge.

“Many parents and legal guardians do not have the capacity or resources to educate their children at home or at a private school and are thus compelled to send their children to public school.”

It continues: “Plaintiffs believe, and it is the law in many states, including Michigan and Virginia, as well as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, that it is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. . . .

“Unfortunately, many public schools, including those in [the districts represented by the plaintiffs], have come under the influence and power of ‘progressives’ who are using these publicly funded schools to promote the divisive, false, harmful, immoral, and racist agenda of the ‘progressive’ left.

“Rather than focusing on core subjects such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and science, these schools are using their power of compulsion to indoctrinate children with a divisive, false, harmful, immoral, and racist agenda.”

The petition notes that Garland has publicly stated that he will use the Justice Department to “use its authority and resources to discourage threats…and other forms of intimidation and harassment.” And he is opening a “snitch line” for people to file reports against those that are confronting school boards for their policies and who threaten political and legal action to have them removed. The effect is to chill free speech and criticism of the government.

The suit also mentions a conflict of interest Garland has. Many of the parents the attorney general’s warning are directed at are concerned about the “teaching” of critical race theory:

“The Attorney General has a family financial conflict of interest…[his] son-in-law, Alexander ‘Xan’ Tanner, the co-founder and president of Panorama Education, has a lucrative business promoting some of the objectionable indoctrination materials . . . purchased by public school districts throughout the country . . . race-focused surveys and conducts trainings on systemic oppression, white supremacy, unconscious bias, and intersectionality — all under the rubric of ‘Social-Emotional Learning [(SEL)].’ Some of the relevant indoctrination materials include SEL as Social Justice — Dismantling White Supremacism within Systems and Self.”

The suit identifies one of the parents suing as Xi Van Fleet, a Chinese citizen before immigrating to the United States. She had endured Mao’s Cultural Revolution while in China and thinks that the tactics being used by the attorney general are the same as those used by the Chinese Communists to prevent parents from speaking out on behalf of their children against the government.

Ms. Van Fleet, who spent her school years in China, is very familiar with the tactics of government suppression, say her lawyers.
The suit alleges that “the government is without authority to criminalize First Amendment activity.”

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.) 

This week’s Faith On Trial program

Lisa Bourne

This week we visited with Attorney Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center in Michigan. Mr. Muise and the American Freedom Law Center is representing two groups of parents, one in Salina, Michigan and the other in Loudoun County Virginia, in a federal lawsuit against the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland. The lawsuit is over the Justice Department’s targeting parents who are protesting actions of their local school boards. The suit is seeking a declaratory judgment of illegality by the AG and injunction prohibiting further actions by the Justice Department.

Joining us as co-host was Lisa Bourne of Heartbeat International who was sitting in for Gina Noll who was in Florida visiting her daughter. You can listen to the program here:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/289e4eae/suit-against-attorney-general-2322

FOT airs on Iowa Catholic Radio every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on 1150 AM, and 94.5 FM, Des Moines; and 90.9 FM in Creston and 88.5 FM Adel. The program also streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to broadcasts you may have missed.

Biden fails at prayer breakfast event

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president 

It's a good thing that Vice President Kamala Harris didn't speak first at the National Prayer Breakfast. She would have made President Biden look bad. 

She gave a very good speech, ending with a prayer. He personalized his address, offering a mumbling account of his interactions with congressional colleagues, past and present. 

Instead of rehashing old war stories, and making silly comments on how "the world is changing," Biden could have taken the opportunity to address one of our most pressing social problems—the war on the police. He said not a word about the cop-killing spree that has become a national embarrassment. Oh, yes, he mentioned gun violence, but not in reference to police being shot. 

This is particularly troubling given that Biden's next stop today is to meet in New York City with its mayor, Eric Adams. The reason for the meeting is not climate control—it's the wave of violence that has gripped New York (and other big cities). Among the dead are those who gave their lives to protect New Yorkers. 

In the last week alone, St. Patrick's Cathedral has been the site of two funerals for police officers killed in the line of duty. Cop killing is soaring in many cities, crying out for a response from elected officials. Yet the best Biden can do is talk about gun control. 

Guns are not responsible for mentally ill ex-cons throwing people into oncoming subway trains, or for "smash and grab" thugs who steal from department stores. They also have nothing to do with violent felons who are back on the street before the police complete their paper work.

The real reason crime is increasing at an alarming rate has everything to do with the leaders of Biden's party. Democrat-run cities, with George Soros-funded D.A.'s, have sent criminals and cops a message: social justice means less penalties for violent criminals and less interest in the welfare of the police. 

Biden blew it. He had a chance to make substantive remarks about real-life issues that the public is facing. Instead, he sounded more like an old man reminiscing about days gone by.

Student Wins Right to Start Pro-Life Club After Teachers Called Her a "Bigot" and Tried to Stop Her - LifeNews.com

Student Wins Right to Start Pro-Life Club After Teachers Called Her a "Bigot" and Tried to Stop Her - LifeNews.com: An Indiana high school student whose teachers called her “bigoted” for trying to start a pro-life club won a victory in her case Thursday against the Noblesville School District, according to her attorneys. Though the student’s lawsuit is not over yet, attorney Zac Kester of Charitable Allies in Indianapolis said they reached a partial agreement […]

This week (2-3-22) on Faith On Trial: A lawsuit against the Attorney General

Robert Muise

Our guest this week is Attorney Robert Muise from the American Freedom Law Center who will discuss with us the federal lawsuit he has filed against the Attorney General of the United States for the intimidation of parents who are objecting to their child’s school curricula. Sitting in this week for Gina will be an old friend of the program Lisa Bourne.

We’ll be discussing the lawsuit Mr. Muise has just filed on behalf of parents in Saline, Michigan and Loudoun County, Virginia, and the claims made in the suit, including the claim that the Attorney General has a conflict of interest in the subject matter. So join Deacon Mike and Lisa Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio.

 FOT airs on Iowa Catholic Radio every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on 1150 AM, and 94.5 FM, Des Moines; and 90.9 FM in Creston and 88.5 FM Adel. The program also streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to broadcasts you may have missed

Religion Clause: Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Me...

Religion Clause: Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Me...: Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering fre...

Two Anti-Christian cases before the courts

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

There are two religious liberty cases before the federal courts that have much in common: (a) both evince a clear animus against Christianity, and (b) they emanate from the most militantly secular states in the nation, Oregon and Washington.

The Oregon case will be appealed to the Supreme Court; the Washington case will be decided in the spring by the high court.

In 2013, the Court of Appeals in Oregon ruled that Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned a bakeshop in Gresham, discriminated against a lesbian couple, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, when they refused to make a wedding cake for them. The evangelical couple did so on religious grounds, citing Leviticus for support.

The lesbians filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. It said  the Christians violated Oregon's accommodations statute barring discrimination based on sexual discrimination. The panel ordered them to pay $135,000 in damages. The bakery owners appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2016, but they lost again. Then they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2019, the high court vacated the ruling and sent it back to the state court of appeals for reconsideration. It cited its ruling in a similar case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, (which was decided favorably to the religious liberty side), for review.

On January 26, 2022, the Oregon appeals court told the Bureau of Labor and Industries to reconsider its order fining the Christian couple. It said that the state agency "acted non-neutrally" against them. But it insisted that the couple was still guilty of discriminating against the lesbians.

Attorneys for First Liberty Institute, joined by former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, will appeal this ruling, arguing that the same agency that showed an anti-Christian bias should not be allowed to try this case one more time. They maintain that the appeals court should have put an end to this case once and for all.

The appeals court showed cowardice when it said the state agency "acted non-neutrally." This sanitized term is a ruse: it would be more accurate to say that flagrantly anti-Christian remarks were voiced by some on the panel.

The lawyers for the Christians contended that the panel's "administrative prosecutor disparaged" their client, labeling their objections a mere "excuse" for discrimination. They also unjustly compared their clients' objections to cases involving "physical violence, prolonged sexual harassment, and religious coercion." The bakery owners were even enjoined from "speaking about their religious beliefs, despite the lack of any basis for such a gag order."

The Washington case involves a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who huddled with players for a prayer on the 50-yard-line after games at Bremerton High School, outside of Seattle.

When he was asked by school officials not to lead the players in a prayer, he complied. When he decided to take a knee and say a silent prayer with the players, the school objected again, saying students could see him praying. Finally, the school banned prayer altogether.

The school said that if he wants to pray he should do so in a janitor's closet or the press box; this way no one would construe his behavior to be a government-endorsed event. He refused, citing his First Amendment rights. The school fired him.

Kennedy sued and twice lost before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that public speech of "an overtly religious nature" is forbidden, arguing that doing so gives the impression that the government is endorsing religion. Kennedy's First Liberty attorneys charged that the Ninth Circuit was now saying that "even private religious speech by teachers and coaches violates the Establishment Clause (italic in the original)."

Kennedy appealed to the Supreme Court but the justices declined the case; they asked the lower courts to review it. Now the Supreme Court has decided to hear the latest appeal.

Jeremy Dys, the First Liberty attorney for Kennedy, argued that the Ninth Circuit ruling sets a dangerous precedent. It would call into question whether "a public-school employee has a constitutional right to engage in brief, quiet prayer by himself (his italic.)"

Furthermore, if this ruling were to stand, it would mean that a teacher who bowed his head before a meal in the school cafeteria, or wore a crucifix or yarmulke, could be fired for giving the appearance of government endorsement of religion.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State president Rachel Laser, who represents the school board, frames the issue in a patently dishonest way. "No child attending public school should have to pray to play school sports." She's right about that, but it is a red herring: No student is being compelled to pray as a condition of playing sports in any public school in the nation.

These two cases are driven by a hatred of Christianity, and that is why they have been banging around in the courts for so long. The totalitarian left, which occupies a sizeable presence in Oregon and Washington (home to the crazed 2020 Portland and Seattle riots), must be stopped if liberty is to prevail.