Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[Retro Rob]

If atheists/agnostics are so scary and powerful perhaps theists should hire bodyguards to protect them.

Actually, that's what SCOTUS is for.

 

[alzan]

Didn't mean to offend you, sorry about that.



I think my overall point was that if your argument is about the morality of the issue, then I think there are more things that are would be considered highly immoral than the sensitive ears of atheists out in the hallway of a town meeting having to hear a reference to God.

I think you know it's not about the sensitivity of someone's ears.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you know it's not about the sensitivity of someone's ears.

Well, what am I supposed to think if they (opponents) are wiling to allow censored prayers?

As long as "God" has been in the pledge and on money for like the past 60 years, there has been no establishment of Christianity as the State religion.

I don't think that argument holds water anymore.

 

[alzan]

Well, what am I supposed to think if they (opponents) are wiling to allow censored prayers?

As long as "God" has been in the pledge and on money for like the past 60 years, there has been no establishment of Christianity as the State religion.

I don't think that argument holds water anymore.

I wasn't aware of "censored" prayers; I admit I don't know the specifics of the case that was looked at by SCOTUS; I was posting my thoughts on the subject in general. I'll update my thoughts after perusal. A simple and eloquent solution would be to have a moment of silence before council meetings but there would be some from all sides for whom that would not be a viable option.

My argument is not necessarily that the government is establishing/endorsing Christianity (although based on the reasons and the petitioning of the government by certain groups and individuals I understand why some feel that it is Christianity being endorsed), it's more that government cannot establish/endorse religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

See the issue? It's not that government officials are praying to "G-d", "Allah", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", etc., it's that they are referencing religion period.

 

[shira]

I am an Atheist, I would be just as against an Atheist getting up at the beginning of a meeting and giving a pro-atheist speech. The government is supposed to be secular, period. That doesn't mean Atheist. But starting a government meeting with a prayer serves no purpose, and clearly violates the establishment clause, IMO.

BTW: I really don't have a problem with religious speech, even on government property. As long as it is no way supported by or interfering with the official government business. For example, when I was in college we had a very fundamentalist preacher come on to campus for a week at a time a couple times a semester. I used to go listen to him all the time, because I enjoyed it. I had no issue with him standing on public land to do it, since he was no disrupting any official business and no one had to listen or stay around him. The school made him stay on the lawn in front of the library, where no on would be required to listen to him. If a professor had brought him into class to pray before lecture, I would've been pretty annoyed by that.

I also have no problem if a group of government employees wants to get together to pray/bible study during their breaks. Or if schools offer optional religious classes. But as soon as it is brought into an official meeting/event it is unconstitutional, as far as I am considered.

I do think it is funny a lot of the people that are good with ruling are the same people that were completely against the Muslim community center 2 blocks from the WTC. What will you all think when you go to a government meeting and it opens with a Muslim prayer?

The point I was trying to make is that if this time before the actual meeting is "neutral" with respect to religion, then it cannot be restricted to just those who want to pray to a deity. Enforcing such a restriction would CLEARLY be a state-sanctioned preference for theistic expression versus the expression of other beliefs (and I don't just mean atheism).

Like you, I don't want ANYBODY "doing their thing" under the auspices of a government meeting. If the SCOTUS is telling us that prayers are OK, then it damn well MUST be okay for EVERY belief system to be expressed.

 

[CanOWorms]

Sad to see the Supreme Court fall for political correctness.

 

[mrjminer]

I don't subscribe to a religion. I don't see a problem with this. As long as its not some 10 minute affair, the time wasted is more of the issue than the actual religion.

Just like the pledge of allegiance (which I always say in full because I'm not a piece of shit traitor like some of the dumb fuck "atheists" or "other religion" people here), you have the option to ignore it if you so choose. Don't want to be religious? Then don't go out and become religious/change religions after hearing words, dickheads. You aren't being forced into a religion by any means.

Also, of course they aren't going to pray for every religion. Want to know why the religion is not your religion? Because people in your religion don't get voted for because you're the minority and people elected by popular vote are going to typically going to be people more in-line with the people voting. Don't like it? Choose another religion, preferably one that's not fucking crazy (ala not Allah), or move somewhere that has a high concentration of the batshit nuts.

 

[IronWing]

I don't subscribe to a religion. I don't see a problem with this. As long as its not some 10 minute affair, the time wasted is more of the issue than the actual religion.

Just like the pledge of allegiance (which I always say in full because I'm not a piece of shit traitor like some of the dumb fuck "atheists" or "other religion" people here), you have the option to ignore it if you so choose. Don't want to be religious? Then don't go out and become religious/change religions after hearing words, dickheads. You aren't being forced into a religion by any means.

Also, of course they aren't going to pray for every religion. Want to know why the religion is not your religion? Because people in your religion don't get voted for because you're the minority and people elected by popular vote are going to typically going to be people more in-line with the people voting. Don't like it? Choose another religion, preferably one that's not fucking crazy (ala not Allah), or move somewhere that has a high concentration of the batshit nuts.

The attitudes displayed above are precisely why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and a clear example of why the Supremes screwed the pooch on this one.

 

[mrjminer]

The attitudes displayed above are precisely why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and a clear example of why the Supremes screwed the pooch on this one.

I'm glad that you agree that the Bill of Rights and Constitution support my opinion that people are free to practice their religion of choice, but the part about the Supreme Court screwing up is confusingly contradictory. Perhaps you meant to say that they didn't screw up? Just wondering, because the last time I read either document, I didn't see anything that stated individuals were prohibited from practicing their religion / non-religion of choice.

Or perhaps you didn't make a mistake and meant that you have problems with people practicing their religion without interfering with your religious beliefs, or lack thereof?

 

[pcgeek11]

I wasn't aware of "censored" prayers; I admit I don't know the specifics of the case that was looked at by SCOTUS; I was posting my thoughts on the subject in general. I'll update my thoughts after perusal. A simple and eloquent solution would be to have a moment of silence before council meetings but there would be some from all sides for whom that would not be a viable option.

My argument is not necessarily that the government is establishing/endorsing Christianity (although based on the reasons and the petitioning of the government by certain groups and individuals I understand why some feel that it is Christianity being endorsed), it's more that government cannot establish/endorse religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

See the issue? It's not that government officials are praying to "G-d", "Allah", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", etc., it's that they are referencing religion period.

Let us bold this part also:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

 

[schmuckley]

The government does not have the right to take your money to pray with it either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_Chapel

"Jefferson and Family at Church In this letter Manasseh Cutler informs Joseph Torrey that Thomas Jefferson "and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall" of the House of Representatives."


"On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

^This epitomizes the meaning of separation of church and state.


Just so you know,it's always been that way.

 

[Exterous]

I would love to see a few atheists get onto the council and open a council meeting with "Let us all bow our heads. Today we recognize that there is no god and believing in one is a silly, silly thing." or better yet, Satanists, "All hail the dark lord Satan and let his eternal torment come upon those who do not recognize his hellish glory"

I see that you either did not read or failed to comprehend the ruling. To be fair many others couldn't be bothered either but what you suggest is not acceptable under the ruling. You would not be allowed to denigrate other faiths\views or proselytize

If you instead left god(s) out or used Allah\Buddha\Flying Spaghetti Monster in some of general 'thank you'\'guide us to the best decision' type of thing that seems pretty innocuous to me and I believe the Supreme Court would agree

This is similar to the argument I've heard in many other threads. Trying to stop others from imposing their views on you does not equal imposing your views on them.

Listening to someone pray is not them forcing their views on you. If it were we should have seen Christians in this town be outraged they had to have views forced on them by listening to the Jewish rabbi or Wiccan open the town cou ncil meeting. It is possible to be exposed to someone else's views without it being relegated to 'force'. My wife (atheist) works at a private Christian school yet - somehow - has managed to not be offended or felt her views have been infringed on.

Not wanting others to use government resources to proselytize

Just to be clear they ruled the prayer is only allowed if it doesn't do this. Simply hearing a prayer does not count as proselytizing.

 

[Exterous]

And just to show how many people didn't bother looking into the issue before replying:

In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.

So they had non-Christians open the proceedings as well. I think it somewhat odd that the lawsuit was specifically against the christian part instead of the other faiths represented. Perhaps it was the frequency of the christian openings but - as a percentage of the local population - the christian openings were under represented.

Edit: On further reading it appears they viewed the allowed references to God were not generic enough:

The Supreme Court decided 30 years ago that state legislatures may begin sessions with an invocation. But the new case asked whether there might need to be different rules for local council meetings, where citizens often come to ask for favorable official action.

The town residents who objected to the prayer practice, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, also argued that the court’s 1983 decision in Marsh v. Chambers authorized only inclusive, nonsectarian prayers to a “generic God.”

I do think it is funny a lot of the people that are good with ruling are the same people that were completely against the Muslim community center 2 blocks from the WTC. What will you all think when you go to a government meeting and it opens with a Muslim prayer?

I was fine with the community center and stated such on this forum

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I see that you either did not read or failed to comprehend the ruling. To be fair many others couldn't be bothered either but what you suggest is not acceptable under the ruling. You would not be allowed to denigrate other faiths\views

If you instead left god(s) out or used Allah\Buddha\Flying Spaghetti Monster in some of general 'thank you'\'guide us to the best decision' type of thing that seems pretty innocuous to me and I believe the Supreme Court would agree

Please - listening to someone pray is not them forcing their views on you. It is possible to be exposed to someone else's views without it being relegated to 'force'. My wife (atheist) works at a private Christian school yet - somehow - has managed to not be offended or felt her views have been infringed on.

Just to be clear they ruled the prayer is only allowed if it doesn't do this. Simply hearing a prayer does not count as proselytizing.

Most reasonable post in the thread.

/thread

 

[realibrad]

The reason people are saying "forced" is because it had to be done before court could start. Using prayer to signal that official government business was being held is the issue. By making prayer a trigger to government, you are then placing prayer in the government. If people wanted to pray at court fine. I cant see any reason to ask someone not to pray. If their prayer gets in the way of court proceedings. If you are asked a question, you don't get to not answer because you decide to start praying for a couple of hours. If you believe its your right to express your religion at any time under any circumstance then people would use prayer to not answer anything, and could never be stopped because of freedom of expression.

But that is not what freedom of expression means. Freedom of expression means you should not (was going to say cannot but that would be wrong, because it does happen) be arrested for the speech. That does not mean you are absolved from what your speech does. We know the examples so I wont go into those. The issue is not about offending atheists even if some think it is. Its about the government being used for religion.

An attempt at secularism was not perfect, but it was clear. This whole case was not only that prayer was being done to start court, but more specifically christian prayer. This is in direct conflict with what the constitution was trying to do. But, that does not mean the whole issue was about law. The reason the founders put it into law, was because they knew how society could be hurt when government incorporated religion of one group. This is why they tried to not incorporate any group. Given the times, just about everyone in the US was a form of christian, but the spirit of the constitution would mean that the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling.

 

[Exterous]

The reason people are saying "forced" is because it had to be done before court could start. Using prayer to signal that official government business was being held is the issue. By making prayer a trigger to government, you are then placing prayer in the government. If people wanted to pray at court fine. I cant see any reason to ask someone not to pray. If their prayer gets in the way of court proceedings. If you are asked a question, you don't get to not answer because you decide to start praying for a couple of hours. If you believe its your right to express your religion at any time under any circumstance then people would use prayer to not answer anything, and could never be stopped because of freedom of expression.

Wait - so are you arguing against the 1983 USSC ruling that town councils can start proceedings with a prayer? It seems so because this ruling is NOT about whether you can start a town council meeting with a prayer or not. This ruling IS about whether the prayer being predominantly from a particular religion is allowed.

 

[OCGuy]

Very narrow ruling. Not what I believe is constitutional, but they made sure the reasoning was extremely specific to this situation.

 

[realibrad]

Wait - so are you arguing against the 1983 USSC ruling that town councils can start proceedings with a prayer? It seems so because this ruling is NOT about whether you can start a town council meeting with a prayer or not. This ruling IS about whether the prayer being predominantly from a particular religion is allowed.

The underlying issue would be the same in both cases I suppose. I have a problem with both cases for the same reason. So not only have the allowed dogs, but they more specifically allow dalmatians (PM me if you don't get this). My point in bringing that up was in reference to a previous post and my issue not only being on the legal grounds, but also in the fundamental issue I have.

 

[IronWing]

I'm glad that you agree that the Bill of Rights and Constitution support my opinion that people are free to practice their religion of choice, but the part about the Supreme Court screwing up is confusingly contradictory. Perhaps you meant to say that they didn't screw up? Just wondering, because the last time I read either document, I didn't see anything that stated individuals were prohibited from practicing their religion / non-religion of choice.

Or perhaps you didn't make a mistake and meant that you have problems with people practicing their religion without interfering with your religious beliefs, or lack thereof?

Individuals are free to exercise their religious freedom. Government officials, acting in their official governmental capacity, are not free to use thier government position and government resources to promote their religious views. That is what opening prayers are all about, the use of public office to promote private religious views. This is where the Supremes are wrong.


Now let's revisit your post:

Just like the pledge of allegiance (which I always say in full because I'm not a piece of shit traitor like some of the dumb fuck "atheists" or "other religion" people here), you have the option to ignore it if you so choose. Don't want to be religious? Then don't go out and become religious/change religions after hearing words, dickheads. You aren't being forced into a religion by any means.

Also, of course they aren't going to pray for every religion. Want to know why the religion is not your religion? Because people in your religion don't get voted for because you're the minority and people elected by popular vote are going to typically going to be people more in-line with the people voting. Don't like it? Choose another religion, preferably one that's not fucking crazy (ala not Allah), or move somewhere that has a high concentration of the batshit nuts.

You imply that a person who might object to the un-Constitutional insertion of religion into the pledge as "a piece of shit traitor".

You go on to tell us that people with minority religious views should change religions or move. Again, the whole point of the anti-establishment clause was to to prevent folks from using the power of government for religious coercion. Yet here you are advocating just that. The Supremes ignored the Constitution in this decsion, going so far as to state that there should be no court review of the content of official prayer, thereby opening the door wide open for the use of government position and resources for sectarian purposes.

 

[Atreus21]

Kevin Williamson's paraphrasing of Thomas' concurrence:

The First Amendment is a constraint upon Congress, not upon the township of Greece, N.Y.; that it explicitly permits not only the encouragement of religious belief but the actual establishment of churches at the state and local level; that the men who wrote the First Amendment and who fought in the Revolution did not seem to believe that the Bill of Rights was in conflict with Massachusetts’s deciding to have an established Congregationalist church or with Pennsylvania’s choosing not to establish any church, in deference to the nonconforming sensibilities of its Quaker-dominated public culture, but rather that the First Amendment ensured that the federal government was bound to permit either outcome; and, finally, that even if the “no establishment” rule were to be applied to Greece, N.Y., permitting the offering of prayers before a board meeting is not the same thing as establishing a church. An established church is a government-supported ministry paid for by tax dollars, not a social convention that makes the local NOW president feel like she sticks out.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377279/room-pray-kevin-d-williamson

I agree with this argument.

 

[Zorba]

And just to show how many people didn't bother looking into the issue before replying:

So they had non-Christians open the proceedings as well. I think it somewhat odd that the lawsuit was specifically against the christian part instead of the other faiths represented. Perhaps it was the frequency of the christian openings but - as a percentage of the local population - the christian openings were under represented.

Edit: On further reading it appears they viewed the allowed references to God were not generic enough:

It is nice this town allowed other religions in, but that doesn't mean every town would, especially in the deep south or bible belt. I also see no need to get people wound up when some religion the majority of people disagree with does the opening prayer, such as Wiccans or Satanist. I could almost guarantee around here if a Muslim or Atheist tried to give an opening prayer, people would go apeshit and there would be no meeting.

At the end of the day it is just a waste of time and resources. If you want to give a short prayer to a generic god, fine whatever, at least you aren't wasting time trying to make things fair and you aren't upsetting people with non-official business.

 

[IronWing]

Very narrow ruling. Not what I believe is constitutional, but they made sure the reasoning was extremely specific to this situation.

I disagree. In declining court oversight of the content of official prayers the court has opened the door wide for all sorts of sectarian shenanigans.

"Oh Lord we beseech you to give us wisdom on this day and to help these heathen Methodists among us to turn from the false god they worship and to find the true light of Christ's words. Amen."

 

[IronWing]

Kevin Williamson's paraphrasing of Thomas' concurrence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377279/room-pray-kevin-d-williamson

I agree with this argument.

And he is wrong. The 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the states. Towns and cities are chartered creatures of the states and are subject to the 1st amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

Kevin Williamson's paraphrasing of Thomas' concurrence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377279/room-pray-kevin-d-williamson

I agree with this argument.

Yeah I have to say that's pretty obviously wrong. There is an enormous amount of court precedent that says through the 14th amendment the establishment clause is every bit as binding on states and local governments as it is on Congress.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah I have to say that's pretty obviously wrong. There is an enormous amount of court precedent that says through the 14th amendment the establishment clause is every bit as binding on states and local governments as it is on Congress.

There's an enormous amount of court precedent for just about any interpretation at this point.

But granting your point:

...even if the “no establishment” rule were to be applied to Greece, N.Y., permitting the offering of prayers before a board meeting is not the same thing as establishing a church.