Sports Illustrated hit for article claiming Supreme Court ruling on prayer could erode 'American democracy'

close

Video

Fox News Flash top entertainment headlines 6/13

Fox News Flash top entertainment and celebrity headlines are here. Check out what clicked this week in entertainment.

Sports Illustrated (SI) was blasted Monday for what many Twitter users considered a biased take on an upcoming Supreme Court case on religious freedom.

The sports magazine promoted an article on its Twitter account penned by Greg Bishop that discussed the case involving high school football coach Joe Kennedy’s right to pray on the field after a game. Although the case has yet to be ruled on, Sports Illustrated warned that a ruling in favor of Kennedy would be "an erosion of a bedrock of American democracy."

"SCOTUS will soon rule on the case of a public school football coach who wants to pray on-field after games. @GregBishopSI on Joe Kennedy, the machine backing him and the expected result: a win for Kennedy and an erosion of a bedrock of American democracy," the post read.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 25: Former Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy answers questions after his legal case, Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, was argued before the Supreme Court April 25, 2022 in Washington, DC. Kennedy was terminated from his job by Bremerton public school officials in 2015 after refusing to stop his on-field prayers after football games. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The tweet echoed the claim in Bishop's piece which opened, "The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the case of a football coach at a public high school who was told he wasn’t allowed to pray on the field in front of players. The expected result is a win for the coach—and the further erosion of the separation between church and state."

RON DESANTIS CALLS OUT DEMOCRATS, MEDIA OVER THREATS TO SCOTUS: ‘TOTALLY ANTITHETICAL TO RULE OF LAW’ 

Several Twitter accounts called out this description as "nonsense" and a terrible take on the Supreme Court from the sports magazine.

The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway tweeted, "’Freedom of religion is both the thing on which the country is founded upon and a threat to democracy’ is sure a take."

Attorney Casey Mattox wrote, "Actually, no. It is not an erosion of a bedrock of democracy if the government can't punish people for praying. This is a bad take."

Football player prays on the sidelines before a game. (iStock)

Rep. Chip Roy's, R-Texas, communications director Nate Madden tweeted, "SI coming out swinging against the First Amendment and public prayer as erosion of the ‘bedrock of democracy’ is certainly a choice..."

"Tell me you’ve never read the Constitution without telling me you’ve never read the Constitution," Grabien founder Tom Elliot wrote.

Washington Examiner magazine managing editor Jay Caruso quoted from the opening of the article and dubbed it "Total nonsense." 

THE LEFT WANTS TO USE EDUCATION TO ‘DISRUPT’ AND ‘DISMANTLE’ AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS: EDUCATION EXPERT 

The case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is expected to be handed down sometime in June. Although the Supreme Court has blocked cases involving prayers in the past, many have speculated that the now 6-3 conservative majority could rule in Kennedy’s favor.

FILE - In this April 23, 2021, file photo members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.  (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Since the announcement that the Supreme Court would take up the case in April, other liberal media outlets have expressed concerns that a ruling for Kennedy could lead to the end of "the separation of church and state", a concept not envisioned by the founders at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.