Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[Texashiker]

Court majority said prayers were more of a tradition than a promotion of religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/05/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-prayer-at-council-meetings/

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of local officials to open town council meetings with prayer, ruling that this does not violate the Constitution even if the prayers routinely stress Christianity.

The court said in a 5-4 decision Monday that the content of the prayers is not critical as long as officials make a good-faith effort at inclusion.

Good decision on part of the court.

 

[blake0812]

I don't see why it wouldn't be okay.

 

[theeedude]

Another 5-4-er that will be reversed when the majority flips.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dearborn will be pleased to know they can open meetings with whatever praise to Allah they deem fit. I myself find that a tad uncomfortable.

I am not familiar with previous court cases deciding on where religion ends and government begins. Where do we draw the line? Surely official government business and meetings are to be handled in a secular nature?

 

[TheSiege]

As long as every religion who wants to partake has the opportunity, then I have no problem.

 

[LightPattern]

If you ban prayer at government meetings when the particular convening body that is meeting decides they want it, that seems to be an intrusion of government regulation on religious speech.

If you did have to regulate any aspect of religion at meetings for any purpose of government, I think they'd have to also censor music that is played.. to be sure there's no mention of it, and if a government committee meets in rooms used for other purposes, they'd need to be sure any religious pictures or sculptures are covered up or taken down.


Also, I would see taking such action as affirming the religious position of those whose belief system is that there is no God (and are no gods).

Justice Kennedy:
"Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy."

 

[Brainonska511]

As long as every religion who wants to partake has the opportunity, then I have no problem.

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?

 

[blake0812]

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 think the thing is that they don't HAVE to join in. It's the opportunity to do it if you are religious.

 

[Retro Rob]

What about atheists who don't want to be subjected to that?

They can get offended, but only those who are intolerant get offended.

 

[Texashiker]

What about atheists who don't want to be subjected to that?

Too bad.

Leave the room, cover your ears, bring ear plugs,,,,, being political correct has gone too far. It is impossible to make everyone happy.

Poor little atheist got his feelings hurt,, sniff, sniff. Suck it up and get over it.

 

[thraashman]

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 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 get the feeling some people would quickly be ok with abolishing these prayers.

 

[Brainonska511]

They can get offended, but only those who are intolerant get offended.

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.

 

[Retro Rob]

Too bad.

Leave the room, cover your ears, bring ear plugs,,,,, being political correct has gone too far. It is impossible to make everyone happy.

Poor little atheist got his feelings hurt,, sniff, sniff. Suck it up and get over it.

I don't think its being PC as much as the relatively few non-believers who want to impose their minority views on the rest of the nation.

 

[Jimzz]

Another 5-4-er that will be reversed when the majority flips.

this...

As long as every religion who wants to partake has the opportunity, then I have no problem.

and this.


Funny to see how long till Muslims ask for prayers now the court has said "good-faith effort at inclusion". If you exclude even 1 then you have to exclude all. So for those of the right wing Christian side be careful what you wish for. 😉

 

[Retro Rob]

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 get the feeling some people would quickly be ok with abolishing these prayers.

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?

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't think its being PC as much as the relatively few non-believers who want to impose their minority views on the rest of the nation.

Not having a prayer before the local government meetings is not "imposing views" on the rest of the nation. It is keeping with the tradition of secular government. Having a Christian prayer before the government meetings is tacit approval of a certain religious orientation by the local government.

 

[TheSiege]

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?

Maybe they ask to open with their prayer and just talk about something they like. Or say nothing.

If you get offended by hearing a prayer, then you're a fucking moron. Especially when all religions have equal opportunity.

Just because you are offended, it doesn't mean you are right.

 

[TheSiege]

Not having a prayer before the local government meetings is not "imposing views" on the rest of the nation. It is keeping with the tradition of secular government. Having a Christian prayer before the government meetings is tacit approval of a certain religious orientation by the local government.

Its not if they allow any and every religion a chance. If anything it promotes diversity.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not having a prayer before the local government meetings is not "imposing views" on the rest of the nation. It is keeping with the tradition of secular government. Having a Christian prayer before the government meetings is tacit approval of a certain religious orientation by the local government.

Please, atheists have long wanted to keep religion completely out of the public as if religious people are second-class citizens.

Tradition is the same argument homophobes use to protect the "sanctity of marriage". If that tradition can be changed, then so can your "secular" tradition.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think its being PC as much as the relatively few non-believers who want to impose their minority views on the rest of the nation.

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.

 

[Brainonska511]

Its not if they allow any and every religion a chance. If anything it promotes diversity.

The courts had previously found that there was a de facto standard. Just because in principal, all are allowed, doesn't mean that it is carried out as such.

It's hardly idiotic to be offended when the secular government is unofficially approving a line of religious views. If I wanted a religious-based government, I'd move to a non-secular country.

 

[theeedude]

I think the thing is that they don't HAVE to join in. It's the opportunity to do it if you are religious.

They have to sit there and listen to religious indoctrination if they want to participate in their local government meeting. No one is stopping the local government officials who are so inclined from going to a church before the meeting and praying for wisdom or whatever they want. The issue is they want to bring the church with them into government.

 

[thraashman]

Please, atheists have long wanted to keep religion completely out of the public as if religious people are second-class citizens.

Tradition is the same argument homophobes use to protect the "sanctity of marriage". If that tradition can be changed, then so can your "secular" tradition.

Well seeing as I am an atheist and I know quite a few atheists, you're wrong. Atheists don't want to keep religion out of the public we want to keep it from being forced upon the public by the government. And we feel that government public figures in no way should be forced to abandon their religion they just can't use their station to force their beliefs upon others. Any private citizens who wish to display their religion is free to do so as long as it isn't done as an act of government.

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.

I was going to post pretty much this exactly, but you beat me to it.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

We talked about this in the pledge thread. If you're forcing a change, you are imposing your views because something's changing.

If religious people are trying to pass a bill and atheists are fighting it, then you can say their trying to stop others from imposing.

But if certain laws and provisions are already in place, then your are imposing a change based on your either personal or legal views.

 

[Newell Steamer]

1st the dollar (In God We Trust), now your meetings.

Before you know it, you won't be allowed to eat, unless you say your prayers 1st.

Thanks Obama.