Reviews | Prayer on a school football field: Awaiting Supreme Court decision

For the editor:

Re “In School Prayer Case, Justices Seem to Lean Toward Former Coach” (news article, April 26), about a high school football coach who prayed on the field after games:

It will hardly be surprising if the conservative and politicized court ignores decades of precedent and the Constitution’s very clear mandate on the separation of church and state to allow a school employee to use the facilities. public and his influence as a coach to impose religious practice on his students. .

This shows once again that private prayer is a religion while public prayer is a policy.

Michael Spielman

For the editor:

Whenever Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, wants to pray, God will hear him even if he prays silently and without kneeling. Kneeling was a public way to bring participants together, some of whom may have felt compelled to join in, in order to feel part of the team.

My own prayer is that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Bremerton School District, recognizing the separation of church and state, as is clearly written in our Constitution.

Iris Kaufman
Peabody, Mass.

For the editor:

I wonder if supporters of Joseph Kennedy’s right to pray would also support the rights of a Muslim coach spreading a prayer rug over the 50-yard line and kneeling in prayer, or a Jewish coach walking toward the midfielder and donning a yarmulke (head cover) and tallit (prayer shawl). In a way, I think not.

Pierre Herbst
Montclair, New Jersey

For the editor:

If this football manager can order his team to try a Hail Mary pass during a game, he should be allowed to pray on the same pitch after it.

Charles Bonman

For the editor:

Regarding “Biden Saying ‘Genocide’ a Bit Early”, by Ross Douthat (column, Sunday Review, April 24):

Mr. Douthat is correct that President Biden’s reference to genocide may have been premature and that the West has been inconsistent in how he has used the term. However, Mr Biden himself acknowledged this when he added: “We will let the lawyers decide internationally whether this qualifies or not.

Mr. Biden also implied that Russian forces in Ukraine have committed numerous international crimes. The commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity such as the targeting of civilians, torture and gang rapes are all well documented. Right now, Ukrainians continue to face the horrors of these crimes on a daily basis.

Ukrainians are not well served by such dithering over definitional issues. These are mainly questions related to future prosecutions, and we should indeed leave them to the lawyers to decide.

What the Ukrainian people deserve and need is protection right now. If we stand idly by, we can be sure that this will not be the last country where Vladimir Putin forces his troops to commit mass atrocities. We must do everything possible to put an end to the perpetration of Russia’s crimes.

David J. Simon
Michael A. Szporluk
Mr. Simon is director of the Genocide Studies program at Yale University. Mr. Szporluk is a former researcher in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

For the editor:

Re “In Amazon We Trust. Should we?”, by Moira Weigel (opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, April 24):

Amazon has been at the forefront of innovation and excellent customer service for over 20 years. Last year, we expanded our A-to-Z warranty to include claims in the rare – though all too real for families involved – event that a defective product causes injury or property damage.

We’ve also made it easier for sellers to purchase the product liability insurance we’ve always required. This means that if a customer is injured by a product sold by a third-party seller, either that seller will have insurance to remedy that injury, or the customer can file a claim with Amazon and Amazon will attempt to resolve the claim, at our discretion. at your expense if necessary.

We are the only service provider in the market to have taken these measures. These innovations allow us to support our store’s products and sellers, and it’s a win-win situation for both: customers can shop with confidence from our third-party sellers, and our third-party sellers benefit by reaching more of customers.

While it is true that in the past we have chosen to defend legal claims based on existing product liability laws and we will continue to do so if customers choose to sue us, that does not change anything. that Amazon offers its customers the choice of a fair and efficient, non-judicial process to resolve product liability claims arising from products sold by third-party sellers.

We also support legislation that provides consumer protections wherever they shop online to ensure that all stores meet the same standards.

On behalf of our customers and business partners, we will continue to innovate to ensure that Amazon remains the safest and most trusted place to buy and sell products.

Dharmesh Mehta
The author is vice president of global customer trust and partner support at Amazon.

For the editor:

The only questions I have for Republican voters revolve around truth and trust. Let me ask:

If your children lied to you as often and about as many things as your elected Republicans and senators, would you tolerate it? Would you continue to trust them? What if one of your friends consistently and persistently cheats on you with lies? Would you stay friends?

If your answer is yes, then I misjudged a huge portion of the American electorate.

From Rep. Kevin McCarthy to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, lies are the currency of the kingdom. Is this really what each of us wants?

John R. Scannell
Sammamish, Wash.

Comments are closed.