Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[mrjminer]

People who don't say the pledge of allegiance aren't traitors, they just don't want to participate in an exercise that many of them find gross. There's nothing more American than that.



I did not use the ruling as a defense supporting him being correct, I was just noting that it's probably wrong to treat an opinion as crazy, ignorant, or stupid if it's shared by 4 of the 9 SCOTUS justices.

1. You're right on nothing being more American. It's sort of like this thread I saw where someone said Incorruptible was un-American for constantly entering threads and just telling people to fuck themselves / that they're wrong and then never supporting it. I said something similar, along the lines of there being nothing more American

2. I see your point. I just wanted to emphasize that it didn't indicate correctness

 

[IronWing]

Hardly, but that paints a clearer picture of your perceptive failures: tolerating the batshit crazy and permitting them to practice their religions/non-religions without hindrance, but still believing their religion is batshit crazy equates to being a bigot. Whereas being intolerant and oppressive of freedom of religion makes someone not a bigot.

Perhaps someone could contract out a "Thinker II" statue and forge it out of you!

You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between individual speech and speech made in the performance of governmental duties. My offering public prayers in town council chambers as an individual is a completely different form of speech than my, acting in the role of public official or at the behest of a public official, offering the same public prayer. The first is individual religious expression, protected by the Constitution. The second is a misuse of governmental authority. It's really that simple. Government, under the Constitution, has no business crafting prayers.

 

[shira]

I call them pieces of shit traitors because they refuse to say the pledge of allegiance of their country in full, meaning that you refuse to align yourself with your country. If you refuse to pledge your allegiance to my country because you fail to comprehend the difference between believing a religion and respecting and fulfilling an oath, yet choose to live in the country, then you can go fuck yourself because you are a shithead traitor. The shithead traitor part is more of my opinion than a court-ruled fact, hence the parenthesis.

Why do you assume that a person cannot "align themselves with" America simply because they take a principled stand against public displays of fealty? Are you so shallow, so lacking in imagination, that you cannot understand that being "loyal" does not mean robotically thinking and acting exactly the same way as every other "loyal" American?

 

[peonyu]

I'm not intolerant of religious beliefs. I'm intolerant of the government providing a platform for people to preach from. As previous court had ruled, there was a de facto standard of Christian prayers and it is the tacit approval of certain beliefs over others by the local government that offends me.

There is nothing saying that Hindus, or Muslims or whoever else cant hold prayer, so this ruling is not pushing Christianity. Besides, in today's multicultural world you need to be tolerant of other people and that includes people who follow religion.

 

[Brainonska511]

There is nothing saying that Hindus, or Muslims or whoever else cant hold prayer, so this ruling is not pushing Christianity. Besides, in today's multicultural world you need to be tolerant of other people and that includes people who follow religion.

It's not a matter of tolerance. It's the fact that in order to participate in your local government, you have to sit through a prayer session. It doesn't matter what style prayers or what religion is leading them. I'm saying that it is simply an inappropriate setting and inappropriate use of government resources.

 

[Darwin333]

What about atheists who don't want to be subjected to that? How do they partake in this exciting opportunity to use local government as a pulpit for their personal and private views?

I'm an atheist and I don't feel "subjected" to anything when I sit silently and respectfully if others decide to pray before eating at a dinner I'm attending. I don't get up and walk away from the table or feel left out or feel like I am being converted or anything else. I just spend the moment reflecting on how silly I think they are being thanking god for the expensive steak in front of them.

If I was on a council and some of them wanted to say a short prayer before the meeting, as long as it doesn't cost the .gov a red cent, idgaf. If you are an atheist and think that would exclude you in any way I think you need to get some thicker skin.

Not saying that I necessarily agree with this decision, I really just don't care about it that much. There are far more important issues on the topic to focus my energy on.

 

[Retro Rob]

If I was on a council and some of them wanted to say a short prayer before the meeting, as long as it doesn't cost the .gov a red cent, idgaf. If you are an atheist and think that would exclude you in any way I think you need to get some thicker skin.

Not saying that I necessarily agree with this decision, I really just don't care about it that much. There are far more important issues on the topic to focus my energy on.

I always thought that the "one red cent" statement is just as silly as you think theists are for praying over a steak.

I mean, seriously, there is money being dumped into religion...always has, always will be.

That's a battle you'd never win. As I stated earlier, there are plenty of bad things that I wouldn't want my tax money going to. Guess what? We don't get to tell the .gov exactly where our percentage goes.

 

[zinfamous]

Why not comment on what's real and what's relevant?

All these hypotheticals are nothing but smoke-screens. If you want to play the "what if" game, we should ban gay marriage because "what if" fathers want to marry their daughters?

wat?

 

[realibrad]

I always thought that the "one red cent" statement is just as silly as you think theists are for praying over a steak.

I mean, seriously, there is money being dumped into religion...always has, always will be.

That's a battle you'd never win. As I stated earlier, there are plenty of bad things that I wouldn't want my tax money going to. Guess what? We don't get to tell the .gov exactly where our percentage goes.

1. The issue is not that people freely give money to religion. They should be free to do so if they so choose. The problem is that the government is levying a tax to do so. The government has no place in religion if people freely choose to join. As such, religion has no place in government, because government should not use coercion for taxes to be used for religion.

2. Actually, you kinda do get to tell the government what they get to do. Its why we are a Republic.

3. The issue is not that some don't like religion, so they want it taken out of government. You keep trying to make the argument Religious vs atheist and its not. Because the government cannot give out things fairly and equally to all religions, she should give nothing to them. By giving something to 1 religion over another, you are in fact promoting a religion, and that is legally and morally wrong to do. I think by now you understand this.

 

[justoh]

Funny all the people complaining that the public might have to overhear some prayers, or a little bit of time wasting. Let's worry about that instead of the people in power wanting to pray in the first place, and what that implies about them, those who voted fro them, and everyone else. Like preventing them from praying is going to help any of that.

 

[shira]

Funny all the people complaining that the public might have to overhear some prayers, or a little bit of time wasting. Let's worry about that instead of the people in power wanting to pray in the first place, and what that implies about them, those who voted fro them, and everyone else. Like preventing them from praying is going to help any of that.

As long as all belief systems (both theist and non-theist) are accommodated during this "prayer period," I'm sure that all the fervent Christians who mock those complaining that they're "being forced to overhear some prayers" will have no complaint when they themselves are forced to overhear some "prayers" expressing a very different concept of the universe.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Um, no. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. You propose infringing free speech and religious liberty to protect yourself from speech you do not wish to hear, but there is and should be no right to not be offended.

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

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.

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.

Well said indeed.

If the worst thing in one's day is hearing a prayer with which one disagrees, one needs to STFU and enjoy a pretty damned good day.

 

[IronWing]

Um, no. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. You propose infringing free speech and religious liberty to protect yourself from speech you do not wish to hear, but there is and should be no right to not be offended.

The government does not have religious freedom rights. The issue here is not an individual's right to speech, it is the inappropriate use of government office.

 

[realibrad]

Um, no. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. You propose infringing free speech and religious liberty to protect yourself from speech you do not wish to hear, but there is and should be no right to not be offended.


Well said indeed.

If the worst thing in one's day is hearing a prayer with which one disagrees, one needs to STFU and enjoy a pretty damned good day.

I'm not sure how this keeps happening. The issue is not hearing religion, its having religion be told to you with tax dollars.

Religion out side of government fine.
Religion in government not fine.

While you do not have freedom from religion, you do have freedom from being taxed to support religion.

Again, I don't see an argument for prayer at any time in any place.

Look at it like this. If Hilary Clinton was to kill someone and go to trial, she cant pray all day so she doesn't have to answer questions. If what you say is true, we cant stop her from using prayer to avoid questions on trial, because that would be an attack on her religion.

 

[Exophase]

At least one person posted posted to say they're a Christian who opposes this. That should show that there's more to the issue than atheists being offended by people having or expressing religious beliefs.

The whole retort that atheists shouldn't be offended by this if they really believed religion to be based on myth is especially crazy. I guess the implication is that all atheists are actually closet theists who don't want to be reminded that they're going to hell.

 

[zinfamous]

seems pretty clear to be the wrong decision, but I'm not inherently bothered by this.

It only takes one muslim in Kentucky to request prayer time during a local city council meeting to get people angry enough to overturn this ruling.

 

[realibrad]

seems pretty clear to be the wrong decision, but I'm not inherently bothered by this.

It only takes one muslim in Kentucky to request prayer time during a local city council meeting to get people angry enough to overturn this ruling.

That is the thing. The ruling said that because the prayer had been tradition, it could stay. An Islamic prayer would not be allowed, because it would be new. It was a very narrow ruling to likely stop things just like what you brought up.

 

[justoh]

As long as all belief systems (both theist and non-theist) are accommodated during this "prayer period," I'm sure that all the fervent Christians who mock those complaining that they're "being forced to overhear some prayers" will have no complaint when they themselves are forced to overhear some "prayers" expressing a very different concept of the universe.

But there's an infinite number of "belief systems," many of which don't even call for constant propitiation. And why would the solution be to waste even more time, even if there were others who wanted to take turns, which there likely aren't? I guess you must have meant that rhetorically; as in, they can't accommodate them all so they shouldn't any.

The majority is right that they are the intended audience of their own prayers, and not the public, so what's with all this commotion?

 

[Thebobo]

If the worst thing in one's day is hearing a prayer with which one disagrees, one needs to STFU and enjoy a pretty damned good day.

Say that to a muslims face.

 

[Retro Rob]

seems pretty clear to be the wrong decision, but I'm not inherently bothered by this.

It only takes one muslim in Kentucky to request prayer time during a local city council meeting to get people angry enough to overturn this ruling.

This isn't the first time prayers are allowed -- Muslim prayers have never been offered, so they would rightfully be denied as they wish to continue what was "traditionally" done.

Perhaps try to think about this a little more rather than always positing the "what if a Muslim" fallacy.

I'm sure in predominately Islamic countries, Christian prayers are not allowed.

 

[justoh]

That is the thing. The ruling said that because the prayer had been tradition, it could stay. An Islamic prayer would not be allowed, because it would be new. It was a very narrow ruling to likely stop things just like what you brought up.

"As a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of 'God save the United States and this honorable Court' at the opening of this Court's sessions."

Nothing to suggest it would/should be limited to christian prayer?

This is a like-minded group praying before sessions. If a majority of any council wanted to make a slight alteration to the ritual before starting, why would that make a difference to whether or not it's constitutional?

If a single individual councilman of a difference faith were to suggest that everyone should start performing his own peculiar rituals before starting, instead of the one that most of them wanted to perform, he would just be ignored like any other fringe element in any other group would be if he were to suggest something so ridiculous.

 

[Exophase]

This isn't the first time prayers are allowed -- Muslim prayers have never been offered, so they would rightfully be denied as they wish to continue what was "traditionally" done.

It's a shame how many people think tradition alone is a good justification for something...

 

[Retro Rob]

As long as all belief systems (both theist and non-theist) are accommodated during this "prayer period," I'm sure that all the fervent Christians who mock those complaining that they're "being forced to overhear some prayers" will have no complaint when they themselves are forced to overhear some "prayers" expressing a very different concept of the universe.

This is wrong on so many levels. While all beliefs can be equally voiced, not all are equally valid and therefore are not deserving of "accommodation".

I mean, what if there are some who believe that ALL children must be sacrificed to their god, or that the entire US represents the anti-Christ -- are those the kind of views you want people here being subject to listen to?

I don't think the Government is under any obligation to accommodate all belief system just because they view one (or more) as valid belief systems.

Some are simply not valid by virtue of the tenets of said beliefs.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's a shame how many people think tradition alone is a good justification for something...

No, I do no, just so you know.. The ruling was tradition based. I was explaining why I think the "what if a Muslim" oft-trotted fallacy doesn't apply here.

 

[alzan]

Um, no. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Can the government force anyone to join a particular religion? Of course not, therefore all citizens do have freedom from religion.

This is wrong on so many levels. While all beliefs can be equally voiced, not all are equally valid and therefore are not deserving of "accommodation".

I mean, what if there are some who believe that ALL children must be sacrificed to their god, or that the entire US represents the anti-Christ -- are those the kind of views you want people here being subject to listen to?

I don't think the Government is under any obligation to accommodate all belief system just because they view one (or more) as valid belief systems.

Some are simply not valid by virtue of the tenets of said beliefs.

Not all are equally valid or deserving of accommodation? Are you serious?

Not valid because a large majority of people in the area are worshippers or because they're different from the predominant religious culture of this country? Not valid because the total number of worldwide worshippers is less than x%?

Per your example; in this country, if the followers of x religion claimed their beliefs called for them to sacrifice children to their deity, they would not be legally allowed to do so because of the laws against murder.