Jewish groups protest, praise U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of high school football coach's right to lead post-game prayers

This has been a bad month in the United States for those who promote the idea of "Judeo-Christian" values, as recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have provoked responses that make it obvious that Judeo values are not necessarily Christian values. In 1962, Jewish organizations were opposed to mandated prayer as part of the public school day (see post below), resulting in the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In 2022, Jewish organizations are opposing voluntary prayer on the school grounds after football games, following another Supreme Court decision, 60 years and 2 days after the earlier ruling. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 27, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle-area football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the field following his team’s victories, in a decision that could have ramifications for Jews in public schools and the military.

A number of Jewish groups say the 6-3 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, issued Monday, could roll back church-state separations that have protected schoolchildren from religious coercion for decades.

“This is a significant change in how we approach prayer in public schools, and one that will have a negative impact in particular on students of marginalized faiths and non-religious students,” said Rachel Robbins, the chairwoman of the Anti-Defamation League’s Civil Rights Committee. The ADL, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the school district, said it was “deeply disturbed” by the decision.

The expressions of concern came despite reassurances by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the ruling was in line with a famous 1992 Supreme Court decision in favor of a Rhode Island Jewish family who objected to clergy leading prayer at their children’s public school.

Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Gorsuch quoted from that decision, Lee v. Weisman, in which the court held “that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State.” The ruling Monday in favor of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Bremerton, Washington, school district, Gorsuch wrote, similarly protects First Amendment religious freedoms.

Jewish groups were not buying it.

“The Court’s see-no-evil approach to the coach’s prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court’s blessing,” said Marc Stern, the chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee, which had joined a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the school district.

“That is no advance for religious liberty,” Stern added.

The Bremerton case centered on the activities of Kennedy, who started out by praying alone at the 50-yard line and did not call on others to join him. But soon after, students and others started joining Kennedy in prayer, alarming the school district. It proposed alternatives, including allowing him to pray after the game, but he declined and continued to pray to increased media attention. The school district decided not to renew his contract.

The court concluded, essentially, that by preventing a Christian high school coach from praying, the school district had violated his civil rights no less than had it forced other children to pray.

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” Gorsuch said, emphasizing that Kennedy had not explicitly urged students to join him in prayer.

“It seems clear to us that Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated that his speech was private speech, not government speech,” Gorsuch wrote. “This case looks very different from those in which this Court has found prayer involving public school students to be problematically coercive,” he said, specifically citing Lee v. Weisman.

Lee v. Weisman involved a Baptist clergyman who said at a 1986 middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, “Please rise and praise Jesus for the accomplishments of these children today.”

Merith Weisman’s parents, Vivian, the assistant executive director at the local Jewish Community Center, and Daniel, a social work professor, were unnerved, and the prayer triggered a series of events and lawsuits that culminated in the landmark 1992 case.

That decision was 5-4. Antonin Scalia, the late conservative justice whom Gorsuch replaced, said for years it was wrongly decided, and the religious right agreed. President Donald Trump named three conservative justices, and with the new balance of power, the Supreme Court has in recent weeks ticked off a wish list for religious conservatives, from school choice to overturning abortion rights.

The AJC’s Stern said Gorsuch was cherry-picking quotes from the earlier decision to make his own opinion sound less far-reaching than it was.

“There’s a tendency to sanitize a practice, rip it out of its historical roots and look at it in splendid isolation, and so it [appears] not so terrible,” Stern said in an interview.

Kennedy, as an assistant coach, may not have the same power as the principal in the Rhode Island case who invited clergy, Stern said, but the coach still had coercive power over students, and it was disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

“Kids will do anything to get on a coach’s good side and get playing time,” Stern said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal minority in the dissent, made a similar point, illustrating it with a photo of students surrounding Kennedy in prayer.

“Several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy’s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team,” Sotomayor wrote. “No [Bremerton High School] students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy’s suspension.”

The National Council of Jewish Women, also a signatory to a friend-of-the-court brief, said the latest decision was one in a series that eroded church-state separations, citing among others the recent decision directing the state of Maine to pay for religious schooling for students for whom reaching public schools is arduous.

“No student should have to choose between their religious freedom and being part of school activities,” Jody Rabhan, the group’s chief policy officer, said in a statement. “But today’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton could force children enrolled in public schools to do just that.”

Mikey Weinstein, the Jewish veteran who leads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for religion-state separations in the military, said the ruling will undercut his years-long efforts to remove Christian prayers from military academy athletic events.

The decision “will serve to utterly and expeditiously destroy the precious wall separating church and state in our country and especially the U.S. military,” he said.

For once, I hope Mikey "Whine"stein is correct, in his assertion that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District will undercut his anti-Christian efforts. Go here to see the text of the Court's ruling.

June 28, 2022 update: In contrast to liberal Jewish organizations, an Orthodox Jewish group is praising the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 28, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — Agudath Israel of America praised the reversal of a judicial standard that came about as a result of a Supreme Court ruling backing a public high school football coach who prayed on the fifty-yard line.

Abba Cohen, the Washington director for the haredi Orthodox umbrella body, said the group was pleased that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the decision for the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, did away with a decades-old standard for assessing whether a government authority violated church-state standards.

Cohen clarified later that this did not mean his organization was praising the entire ruling. “Agudath Israel has long expressed concern about and opposition to denominational public prayer and the proselytization in schools,” he said.

The “Lemon test,” stemming from the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, assesses whether a government action advances or inhibits religion. Orthodox groups have long said the test was overly restrictive.

“Rather than offering protection, ‘Lemon’ too often resulted in Establishment Clause hostility toward religion, which itself is constitutionally prohibited,” Cohen said. “The First Amendment is stronger with its demise.”

Gorsuch in his decision said the Lemon test should be superseded by more recent traditions that refer to “historical practices and understandings.”

“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Gorsuch wrote.

Monday’s ruling backed Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Seattle area who was let go from his job because he would not stop on-field prayers. The coach asserted, and the Court majority agreed, that his prayers were “private,” even though his players would join in. Jewish civil rights groups said the ruling put at risk a 1992 ruling banning clergy from praying in schools. That ruling, which the groups said protected children from proselytizers, was spurred by Jewish parents in Rhode Island.

The Orthodox Union, the umbrella body for Modern Orthodox groups and synagogues, declined to comment on Gorsuch’s decision, named Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), said he had mixed feelings about the ruling. Chabad has advocated for years for moments of silence in public schools, seeing them as a means for reflection and promoting more considered behavior.

But Shemtov said the coach’s Christian prayer was not quite the same. “A parochial prayer can present some real problems while a moment of silence is all but unassailable,” Shemtov said in an interview. A moment of silence “gives each individual the right to worship in the privacy of their own mind even in the presence of others.”

To deny the Jewish role in the crucifixion of Jesus is to deny the word of God

It's now fashionable in Christian circles to play down or virtually deny Jewish culpability in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to Aaron Fruh in Israel365 News, April 13, 2022:

Next week Christians around the globe will spend Good Friday in remembrance of the crucifixion of Jesus. As an Evangelical Christian it troubles me the lie the Jews killed Jesus is still believed by many Christians. Since the 2nd century when church father Justin Martyr proclaimed the Jews would collectively as a people bear the responsibility from generation to generation for killing Jesus, the charge of deicide (the murder of God) has been used by Christians to persecute Jews – think of the crusades, pogroms, expulsions, and ultimately the Holocaust. Though an attempt was made in Vatican II in the declaration of Nostra Aetate to put the lie to rest, it still festers like an infected sore. Bad habits are hard to break.

There are several factors in the gospel accounts and in the historical records that have been overlooked by Christians who still hold Jews responsible for killing Jesus. Here are three:

1. The Romans and only the Romans controlled capital punishment

During the time of Jesus, Israel was under the occupation of the Imperial Roman authority and was subjected to the policies of the Roman empire – including relinquishing the ability to pass down capital punishment upon criminals.

2. The Romans were brutal dictators

The Romans were swift and violent against any sign of Jewish uprising – including the hope of a Jewish messiah – and the reality of that threat was ever present. Jesus’ growing popularity among the Jewish people raised the possibility of Roman aggression to a critical level and the Jewish religious leaders were concerned that Rome – if threatened – might not only plunder the nation of Israel but also the holy temple (see John 11:47-48). This fear was realized in the coming years when Rome destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and drove most of the Jews out of Israel.

3. Pilate was not a saint

In some Christian traditions Pilate and his wife are both beautified as saints. Many Christians view Pilate as an innocent victim who was coerced by Jews into ordering the crucifixion of Jesus. By making Pilate a puppet of Jewish leaders, blaming Jews for the death of Jesus becomes more justifiable.

However, far from being a saint, Pilate was a ruthless barbarian who suppressed one Jewish uprising after another with reckless abandon. The Jewish philosopher Philo said this about Pilate’s reign of terror on the Jews: “…the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty” (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 10.302).

So, who killed Jesus? According to all gospel accounts, Jesus died on a Roman cross. The fact is that it was Pilate who passed down the sentence of death on Jesus (Luke 23:24) and it was the Roman soldiers who drove the nails in his hands and feet and thrust the spear into his side.

Furthermore, according to Jesus’ own testimony no one could take his life because he gave it willingly, “No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). Further still, the entire Christian story of redemption is based on the belief that Jesus’ journey to a Roman cross was in the mind of God before time began declaring that Jesus was, “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). As well, Christian doctrine teaches that God’s purpose in the death of Jesus was to atone for the sin of humanity, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (II Corinthians 5:21).

With these facts in mind, why does the lie the Jews killed Jesus still have life? The lie continues to be immortalized by many Christians in order to place Christianity on a higher moral level than Judaism. By blaming Jews for Jesus’ death, Jesus becomes a non-Jew – a Christian in solidarity with other Christians in opposition to Judaism and Jews. The reality is that Jesus was killed by the Roman’s because he was a Jew.

This Good Friday as Christians solemnly remember the canceling of their sins through Jesus’ willing sacrifice may those in Christendom who continue to falsely blame Jews for the death of Jesus make it a time of humble thanksgiving rather than arrogant blame.

For Mr. Fruh to say that "the Jews killed Jesus" is a lie is itself a lie, clearly contradicted by the New Testament. In rebuttal to Mr. Fruh, I cite a previous post of mine, and submit for your approval the following account from the gospel according to Matthew--the gospel account that's most directed toward a Jewish audience--as well as comments by three Jewish leaders of the early Christian church who were either on the scene or in the area at the time:

When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Matthew 27:1-25

Peter: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:...
...Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:...
...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ...
...But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses...
...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole...
...The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree...
...And we are witnesses of all things, whih he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree; Acts 2:14, 23, 36; 3:14-15; 4:11; 5:30; 10:39

Stephen: Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Acts 7:51-52

Paul: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. I Thessalonians 2:14-16

Of course, it's wrong to accuse the Jews of today of killing Christ, but the role of the Jews of Jesus' day in crucifying Him is a matter of historical record. If some people have a problem with that, then that's their problem. There's nothing in the Bible for which Christians have to apologize.

Israeli rabbi refers to Gentiles as brainless people with no good principles

We're constantly hearing about Gentile anti-Semitism, but we seldom hear about Jewish anti-Gentilism. Fortunately, Ynet News isn't shy about reporting it, as they did with this example--and the rebuttal from another rabbi--on May 21, 2012:

Speaking in Beit Shemesh ahead of the Shavuot holiday, Rabbi Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman, one of the leaders of the Lithuanian branch of haredi Judaism discussed the importance of the torah and said that the world was created for the righteous that learn and follow its teachings.

Yet he also issues some more controversial statements. The rabbi's speech which was published in full in the haredi newspaper Yated Ne'eman, included statements on non-Jews:

"There are eight billion people in the world. And what are they? Murderers, thieves, brainless people… But who is the essence of this world? Has God created the world for these murderers? For these evil-doers? "

The rabbi, who has replaced Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv as the Lithuanian branch of Judaism's spiritual leader, reiterated his statements and went on to say: "Non-Jews have no connection to torah. The nations have nothing, no confidence (=faith) and no good principles."

The majority of Rabbi Shteinman's statements focused on the importance of torah and its influence on the day to day life and on the education of the next generation. The rabbi stressed that "those who don't study torah, are not fulfilling the mitzvoth. If he doesn't study torah it leads to devastation, his devastation, and the world's devastation…

"This is what we need to aspire to, to see all the children, all our generations, make sure the sons study torah…anyone and everyone who wants to see "nachas" (joy) from their children needs to make sure they study torah.

"If not torah they will be illiterates and no joy will come of them. Even if he has money, is that the goal (in life)? Can you take money to the grave with you? There is no such thing. What do you have in the grave (afterlife)? Torah."

The Chairman of Hiddush (for Religious Freedom and Equality), Rabbi Uri Regev said in response to Rabbi Shteinman's statements: "It is incredible and outrageous to hear these hate filled statements against almost the entire human race.

"Rabbi Shteinman once again exposes the fact that his fable of moderateness was at best groundless and at worst an act of deceit."

Israeli rabbi says that helping Gentiles injured in accidents violates the Sabbath

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Luke 10:25-37

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Luke 11:42

Things don't seem to have changed much since our Lord's time on Earth. As reported by Ynet News, May 17, 2012:

What should religious doctors do if a gentile is injured in a car accident on Shabbat and is rushed to the hospital? According to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, this does not warrant violating the sanctity of the Sabbath.

During a class on Sabbath halacha relating to religious physicians, the spiritual leader of Shas said that while doctors are expected to do everything in their power – even if it requires violating the Sabbath – in order to save Jews whose lives are in danger, the same does not apply for gentiles.

"If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital – Israel must not treat him," he said, explaining that "if the particular procedures come from rabbis (de-rabbanan), then they might be permitted, but if they stem from prohibitions in the Torah (de-'oraita), then they are not allowed, as the Torah forbids to violate the Sabbath for gentiles."

Rabbi Yosef expounded on the problem, saying that the Mishnah Berurah explicitly says that "all religious physicians who treat gentiles on the Sabbath or violating the Sabbath; however, in reality the patients are brought to the hospital and must be treated. The doctors' license says they must treat all patients without distinction of faith or race, and if they don’t, the State could revoke their license and also punish them. So what should the poor doctors do?"

The rabbi offered a halachic solution that follows a rule by which if a single person is doing the act, he is violating the Sabbath, while if two people are doing it together, they are exempt.

"The doctor who needs to operate will call on another doctor, or nurse, to hold the scalpel together and make the incision," said Rabbi Yosef, saying that "it is necessary in order for religious physicians to refrain from being put on trial for distinguishing between a Jew and a gentile on Sabbath."

Israeli rabbi says that Gentile sperm may carry traits of cruelty and barbarism

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Isaiah 29:13

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7

As reported by Kobi Nahshoni of Ynet News, January 12, 2011:

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews." Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.

Lior addressed the issue during a women's health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.

"Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son," he said in the lecture. "If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel."

Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. "A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren't raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it's genetic," he explained. "If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.

"I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it's no surprise that he won't have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel," he added.

Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another - a major halachic violation.

On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.

"Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree," he lamented. "The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree." Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.