4 | JULY 7 • 2022 

for openers
Thinking Makes It So
H

ypochondria! This is 
what you may be diag-
nosed as suffering from 
if you are overly anxious about 
the state of your health but are 
not suffering any 
real symptoms.
Anything might 
bring this on. Read 
enough about 
viruses plaguing 
sections of the 
globe or be among 
enough people 
who are coughing and sniffling, 
and you become susceptible to 
such thoughts.
Have you ever considered that a 
visit to the bookstore might bring 
on a malady — or merely a per-
ceived one? Well, I did (of course) 

and I would like to share with 
you some of the more obvious 
real book titles that may make 
us sick even before the books 
are read.
As we contemplate the vari-
ous poisons that may infiltrate 
our blood, consider perusing 
Blood Promise by R. Mead or Anna 
Dressed in Blood by K. Blake. Aches 
and pains are your complaint? 
Try Bloody Bones by L. Hamilton or 
Beastly Bones by W
. Ritter.
Who knows what may develop 
from a general malaise? Could 
you be susceptible to The Fever by 
M. Abbott, An American Plague by 
J. Murphy or Hurricane Fever by T.S. 
Buckell.
Temperature disruptions may 
not signify anything so Don’t Sweat 

the Small Stuff by R. Carlson or Sweat 
by M. Gillea. However, this may 
lead to In Bitter Chill by S. Ward or 
Be More Chill by N. Vizzini.
Operations may “cure what 
ails you” but you may be left with 
reminders. Consider Scar Night by 
A. Campbell or The Scar by 
C. Mieville.
Are you stubbornly resisting 
getting glasses? Become anxious 
with Blind Sight by C. O’Connell or 

Blind Alley by I. Johansen.
Those not into severe suffering 
might content themselves with 
Someone Could Get Hurt by D. Magary 
or Hurt Go Happy by G. Robby.
If you think that the above titles 
might bring on a malady you have 
not considered, then you are truly 
too open to suggestions. Perhaps 
you could better satisfy yourself 
with something mild like Night of 
the Walking Dead. Good luck! 

Sy Manello 
Editorial 
Assistant

PURELY COMMENTARY

N

ational Council 
of Jewish Women 
(NCJW) believes 
that public schools should be 
inclusive and 
welcoming places 
for all students, 
regardless of their 
religious beliefs. 
No student 
should have to 
choose between 
their religious 
freedom and being part of 
school activities. But today’s 
ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton 
could force children enrolled in 
public schools to do just that. 
 As Jews in America, we know 
intimately that religion-state 

separation is essential 
to our ability to live and 
thrive. Yet this decision 
and two others this term — 
Shurtleff v. City of Boston (in 
which justices ruled that Boston 
could not exclude religious flags 
from its flag-raising program) 
and Carson v. Makin (which 
for the first time forces states 
to fund religious education) — 
have deeply undermined consti-
tutional law regarding church-
state separation. 
Justice Sotomayor addresses 
this in her dissent by stating that 
with this decision, “the Court 
sets us further down a perilous 
path in forcing States to entan-
gle themselves with religion, 

with all of our rights hanging in 
the balance.
”
 The Court is dismantling the 
wall between religion and state, 
and the impact on people — 
especially children who practice 
a minority religion or no reli-
gion — cannot be overstated. 
 NCJW vows to continue 
to work with a coalition of 
diverse religious and nonre-
ligious advocates to fight on 
behalf of our democratic prin-
ciples, upon which this coun-
try was founded. 

Jody Rabhan is the National Council of 

Jewish Women Chief Policy Officer. 

Jody 

Rabhan

opinion
NCJW Calls Supreme Court 
Decision a Dangerous Blow 
to Religion-State Separation

Editor’s Note: In a June 27 ruling, 
the U.S. Supreme Court said that 
a Washington state school district 
violated the First Amendment 
rights of a high school football 
coach when he lost his job for 
praying at the 50-yard line after 
games. The opinion was 6-3 along 
conservative-liberal ideological 
lines.
The court said coach Joe 
Kennedy’s prayers amounted to 
private speech, protected by the 
First Amendment, and could not 
be restricted by the school district.
The court clarified that 
a government entity does 
not necessarily violate the 
Establishment Clause by 
permitting religious expression in 
public.