Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[Exterous]

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.

Have there been widespread cases of abuse or issues with this since 1983? I would think we would have heard something about this by now if there was.

I agree with you regarding Muslims but I find the argument that we shouldn't do something because it would make people upset a fairly weak argument

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.

Fair enough

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.

I don't believe they declined court oversight on content as that is what they did here. They gave specific oversight requirements for the content of the prayer. The did not require local officials to provide oversight beyond the requirements they laid out.

 

[IronWing]

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.

With the current ruling, officals can engage in what amounts to establishment. A government official can now use office as a sectarian pulpit. The court placed no limits on the type of religious expression that a government official can engage in the conduct of government business. What is to prevent an official from expounding for hours upon the Letters of Paul before getting around to hearing a zoning variance petition?

 

[Atreus21]

With the current ruling, officals can engage in what amounts to establishment. A government official can now use office as a sectarian pulpit. The court placed no limits on the type of religious expression that a government official can engage in the conduct of government business. What is to prevent an official from expounding for hours upon the Letters of Paul before getting around to hearing a zoning variance petition?

There ought to be a line drawn somewhere between permitting the establishment of a theocracy and permitting a prayer before a town meeting.

 

[realibrad]

There ought to be a line drawn somewhere between permitting the establishment of a theocracy and permitting a prayer before a town meeting.

Why are the bounds set at those 2 points? Better than trying to find an equilibrium between those targets that people don't agree on, how about just leaving religion in the private sector?

I don't think anyone is going to hell for not praying or promoting their beliefs in publicly funded buildings or land.

It seems far less costly to society to be secular than it is to try and find a "balance" that is always changing.

 

[nehalem256]

What is to prevent an official from expounding for hours upon the Letters of Paul before getting around to hearing a zoning variance petition?

Common-sense? The desire to be re-elected?

The issue with you are bringing up is not that it is proselytizing, but essentially filibustering.

It is perfectly legal for some crazy left wing official to decide to read the Communist Manifesto aloud before getting around to hearing a zoning variance petition. But yet you don't see that happening.

 

[Atreus21]

Why are the bounds set at those 2 points? Better than trying to find an equilibrium between those targets that people don't agree on, how about just leaving religion in the private sector?

I don't think anyone is going to hell for not praying or promoting their beliefs in publicly funded buildings or land.

It seems far less costly to society to be secular than it is to try and find a "balance" that is always changing.

Society is a balance. Security vs Liberty. Absolute government control vs Anarchy. In the maintenance of a free society there are very few absolutes, and this is no exception.

Religion is good to the extent it doesn't become oppressive. Secularity is good to the extent it doesn't become tyrannically anti-religious. History is replete with examples of both systems gone wrong. Allowing a small town to say a prayer before its town meeting is not the harbinger of theocracy. And if I'm wrong, we have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[Atreus21]

With the current ruling, officals can engage in what amounts to establishment. A government official can now use office as a sectarian pulpit. The court placed no limits on the type of religious expression that a government official can engage in the conduct of government business. What is to prevent an official from expounding for hours upon the Letters of Paul before getting around to hearing a zoning variance petition?

Incidentally, I get chided all the time on this board for making slippery-slope arguments regarding gay marriage and abortion. Interesting how the roles flip here.

 

[realibrad]

Society is a balance. Security vs Liberty. Absolute government control vs Anarchy. In the maintenance of a free society there are very few absolutes, and this is no exception.

Religion is good to the extent it doesn't become oppressive. Secularity is good to the extent it doesn't become tyrannically anti-religious. History is replete with examples of both systems gone wrong. Allowing a small town to say a prayer before its town meeting is not the harbinger of theocracy. And if I'm wrong, we have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

Saying society is a balance is kind of ambiguous. What is it that society is balancing? Is that balance done through direct intervention or emergent through collective actions? Are those outcomes what we would subjectively say is good?

As posted before, secularism does not mean anti-religion. Governments don't to be religious for religion to thrive. Also, there are not any major religions that are not oppressive in their goals and beliefs. The argument I have been making is that government should be secular, but people should be free to believe and do what they want as long as that does not effect unwilling 3rd parties.

 

[Atreus21]

Saying society is a balance is kind of ambiguous. What is it that society is balancing?

As I said above, one example is security vs liberty. As security advances, liberty retreats, and vice versa. Go too far in either direction and you tempt disaster.

Is that balance done through direct intervention or emergent through collective actions?

Both, I'm sure. That too is a balance. When collective action threatens to unbalance things, direct intervention corrects it, as in court decisions overturning popular referendums that are nonetheless unjust.

Are those outcomes what we would subjectively say is good?

Not sure I understand. What outcomes?

As posted before, secularism does not mean anti-religion. Governments don't to be religious for religion to thrive. Also, there are not any major religions that are not oppressive in their goals and beliefs. The argument I have been making is that government should be secular, but people should be free to believe and do what they want as long as that does not effect unwilling 3rd parties.

When secularism prohibits people from reasonable exercise of their religion, I'd say it is definitely anti-religion. Governments shouldn't be allowed to implement any official belief system. But that doesn't mean it should go policing every meeting of the school board for evidence of the slightest religious exercise. To that extent, ironically, it is acting as an inquisitor in search of heresy.

Regarding "unwilling third parties": This also is a balance. Non-Christians may consider themselves unwilling third parties to the sight of a church in their neighborhood. As the plaintiff in this court case did, non-Christians may consider this offensive and alienating. Is that sufficient cause to shut down any exercise to which anyone is an "unwilling third party"?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Supreme Court got this one wrong, and I have little doubt it'll be reversed in time.

 

[realibrad]

When secularism prohibits people from reasonable exercise of their religion, I'd say it is definitely anti-religion. Governments shouldn't be allowed to implement any official belief system. But that doesn't mean it should go policing every meeting of the school board for evidence of the slightest religious exercise. To that extent, ironically, it is acting as an inquisitor in search of heresy.

Regarding "unwilling third parties": This also is a balance. Non-Christians may consider themselves unwilling third parties to the sight of a church in their neighborhood. As the plaintiff in this court case did, non-Christians may consider this offensive and alienating. Is that sufficient cause to shut down any exercise to which anyone is an "unwilling third party"?

I think this is the main problem. You are taking money from taxpayers to use for your "exercise" that is only "reasonable" when it does not directly cost people money. If someone is offended by your beliefs or expression, they have to suck it up. If someone is offended by your beliefs or expression and they helped pay for you to do it, they have a right to attempt to stop it.

You ask if its sufficient cause, I say yes. What gives you the right to tax that non christian, and then promote your beliefs with that taxed resource? You have a right to follow your beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't impose anything on me other than unhappiness. If you are offended by the site of a church and that church was not paid for or sustained by taxes, then get over it. If any taxes were used to build it, then I would have a problem. Keep in mind that as a Lib, I dont believe taxes should go to many other things either.

I fully understand some anti-religious people want it both ways. The issue is that religion seems to get it both ways. I only argue that we should not just be balanced, but unbiased. And because its infeasible to give equally to all beliefs, government should give nothing to all beliefs and let society decide what it wants to give. Government should not be involved, because it takes away the agency of individuals.

 

[OCGuy]

The Supreme Court got this one wrong, and I have little doubt it'll be reversed in time.

Eh...this was such a narrow ruling, that I doubt the court would ever take up the same type of case again.

I am surprised they bothered with it in the first place since it is of such little consequence.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

Exactly!

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

And this as well. Now is the time for all good atheists to show us how tolerant they are. And why be offended; it's just a myth, right?

 

[realibrad]

Exactly!



And this as well. Now is the time for all good atheists to show us how tolerant they are. And why be offended; it's just a myth, right?

I am offended that taxes are being used for religion, not because people are religious.

If society taxed Christians to pay for commercials that said water bottles will get you to heaven I would be offended as well. The difference is that is now what is happening.

 

[Brainonska511]

Exactly!



And this as well. Now is the time for all good atheists to show us how tolerant they are. And why be offended; it's just a myth, right?

I'd be intolerant of this display because it's tacit endorsement by the local government of a religion. I don't see why people need to use the local government meetings as a sounding board for their religions or why citizens need to be subjected to prayers just to participate in their local government.

If you want to pray or lead prayers, do it on your own time. Not at the meeting of the local government.

Plus, it wasn't very inclusive. There was a de facto standard of Christian-prayers:

As Kagan wrote:

From the time Greece established its prayer practice in 1999 until litigation loomed nine years later, all of its monthly chaplains were Christian clergy. And after a brief spell surrounding the filing of this suit (when a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess, and a Baha’i minister appeared at meetings), the Town resumed its practice of inviting only clergy from neighboring Protestant and Catholic churches.

 

[Knowing]

I am offended that taxes are being used for religion, not because people are religious.

The lights are going to be on, and the HVAC system is going to be running, and the doors are going to be unlocked well before the meeting begins. No public money that wasn't already spent is going to be spent so that a couple of people can utter a short consecration.

Even if 1 extra watt was expended, it would be fractions of a penny compared to actual fraud, waste, and abuse which should offend everyone but doesn't until it makes the news.

 

[IronWing]

The assumption that only an atheist could object to sectarian prayer is ridiculous. Christians spent centuries slaughtering each other over slight variations in dogma. It was Christian sectarian promotion by government that the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the anti-establishment clause. I rather doubt that offending atheists rated high on their list of concerns. The court has now given free rein to government officials to use office to promote private religious doctrine. Would Calvinists welcome a prayer for the intercession of the saints in asking for God's blessings on the proceedings? The framers of the 1st amendment knew enough to avoid this abuse of government power. The lesson was apparently lost on the court.

 

[mrjminer]

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:


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.

Yes, let us revisit my post, and also revisit whether or not you are able to read and comprehend and have a brain capable of critical thought, shall we?

1. Your first portion of the quote is wrong. Probably because you seem to believe you know more about the constitution than the majority of the nine most well-versed parties in it. The primary difference between you and them is that they are actually looking at it objectively and permitting individuals to practice their religion without forcing it on others, and you would rather look at it like someone who wants to oppress religions while claiming that they are somehow promoting their religion by practicing it.

2. The insertion of "religion" as you call it into the pledge is obviously not unconstitutional, or else the pledge would be changed. I'm sure someone as filled with knowledge of the constitution is aware that this challenge has been thwarted. 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.

3. I go on to then state that people who don't hear their religions' prayers at a city council meeting where the council is elected by popular vote and will be more in-line with the residents who elected them should change their religion to one that would be heard, or move somewhere where their religion is prominent. In other words, move somewhere where officials that get elected hold the same beliefs as you -- and maybe you'd hear a prayer from whatever crazy as shit religion you may be! Which is of course perfectly fine as long as they aren't forcing others into the religion, establishing it as official, or promoting it -- none of which are occurring in this scenario.

--

I would go through and point out the further stupidity in pretty much everything you have written, but it would be pointless because whatever religion/non-religion you are, you are an incompetent radical.

Maybe you are of a religion / non-religion who has the goal of suppressing the religions of others? This seems to be pretty in-line with your claims of how everything is unconstitutional. Or perhaps you are trolling? I find it hard to be someone that claims to have a firmer grasp on the constitution than the Supreme Court could legitimately be unable to read and comprehend the meaning of words. Actually scratch that, I can.

 

[IronWing]

Yes, let us revisit my post, and also revisit whether or not you are able to read and comprehend and have a brain capable of critical thought, shall we?

1. Your first portion of the quote is wrong. Probably because you seem to believe you know more about the constitution than the majority of the nine most well-versed parties in it. The primary difference between you and them is that they are actually looking at it objectively and permitting individuals to practice their religion without forcing it on others, and you would rather look at it like someone who wants to oppress religions while claiming that they are somehow promoting their religion by practicing it.

2. The insertion of "religion" as you call it into the pledge is obviously not unconstitutional, or else the pledge would be changed. I'm sure someone as filled with knowledge of the constitution is aware that this challenge has been thwarted. 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.

3. I go on to then state that people who don't hear their religions' prayers at a city council meeting where the council is elected by popular vote and will be more in-line with the residents who elected them should change their religion to one that would be heard, or move somewhere where their religion is prominent. In other words, move somewhere where officials that get elected hold the same beliefs as you -- and maybe you'd hear a prayer from whatever crazy as shit religion you may be! Which is of course perfectly fine as long as they aren't forcing others into the religion, establishing it as official, or promoting it -- none of which are occurring in this scenario.

--

I would go through and point out the further stupidity in pretty much everything you have written, but it would be pointless because whatever religion/non-religion you are, you are an incompetent radical.

Maybe you are of a religion / non-religion who has the goal of suppressing the religions of others? This seems to be pretty in-line with your claims of how everything is unconstitutional. Or perhaps you are trolling? I find it hard to be someone that claims to have a firmer grasp on the constitution than the supreme court judge could legitimately be unable to read and comprehend the meaning of words. Actually scratch that, I can.

So you're a bigot. Got it.

 

[mrjminer]

So you're a bigot. Got it.

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!

 

[fskimospy]

2. The insertion of "religion" as you call it into the pledge is obviously not unconstitutional, or else the pledge would be changed. I'm sure someone as filled with knowledge of the constitution is aware that this challenge has been thwarted. 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.

That is really dangerous thinking there. First, citizens of the US aren't required to take any loyalty oath, nor should they be. Thinking that people are unamerican or traitors for not saying the pledge is quasi-fascist and goes against much of what our country is supposed to stand for.

I for one find the pledge to be a bullshit relic of the cold war and I can't imagine any situation where I would ever say it. I guess that makes me a traitor in your eyes, despite the fact that I've actually been to a war for this country. My guess is that you have not.

3. I go on to then state that people who don't hear their religions' prayers at a city council meeting where the council is elected by popular vote and will be more in-line with the residents who elected them should change their religion to one that would be heard, or move somewhere where their religion is prominent. In other words, move somewhere where officials that get elected hold the same beliefs as you -- and maybe you'd hear a prayer from whatever crazy as shit religion you may be! Which is of course perfectly fine as long as they aren't forcing others into the religion, establishing it as official, or promoting it -- none of which are occurring in this scenario.

I would go through and point out the further stupidity in pretty much everything you have written, but it would be pointless because whatever religion/non-religion you are, you are an incompetent radical.

Maybe you are of a religion / non-religion who has the goal of suppressing the religions of others? This seems to be pretty in-line with your claims of how everything is unconstitutional. Or perhaps you are trolling? I find it hard to be someone that claims to have a firmer grasp on the constitution than the Supreme Court could legitimately be unable to read and comprehend the meaning of words. Actually scratch that, I can.

To be clear, about 45% of the Supreme Court agrees with him. It seems a little silly to go on about how ignorant and stupid he must be for holding such a belief when it was a 5-4 vote.

 

[shira]

Let us bold this part also:

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

A state-sanctioned prayer to start off a government meeting is NOT the "free exercise" of religion. Also, official government meetings are NOT a venue where people are allowed to freely express themselves without restriction, just as the workplace is not a venue for free expression.

What a person chooses do do on their own time and own dime is their own business. That's what "free exercise of religion" and "freedom of speech" refer to.

 

[realibrad]

If I ever get pulled over for speeding, I will just start praying. If the cop tries to ask me any questions, Ill keep praying. If he attempts me to stop in any way, I will decry him a religious bigot and sue him. Any attempt to stop religious expression in any context is wrong.

 

[mrjminer]

That is really dangerous thinking there. First, citizens of the US aren't required to take any loyalty oath, nor should they be. Thinking that people are unamerican or traitors for not saying the pledge is quasi-fascist and goes against much of what our country is supposed to stand for.

I for one find the pledge to be a bullshit relic of the cold war and I can't imagine any situation where I would ever say it. I guess that makes me a traitor in your eyes, despite the fact that I've actually been to a war for this country. My guess is that you have not.

To be clear, about 45% of the Supreme Court agrees with him. It seems a little silly to go on about how ignorant and stupid he must be for holding such a belief when it was a 5-4 vote.

I am pretty sure that I made it clear that being a traitor for not saying the pledge in full is my opinion. Serving in the military excuses you from being a traitor since you've shown your allegiance in other ways. Have I been to war for the USA? Nope. Would I if I could / was needed? You're damn right I would. Also, natural-born citizens don't have a "loyalty oath," or something of that nature, I'm guessing because it's implicit that they would be loyal their country of birth. For immigrants, there is the Oath of Allegiance, of which they are permitted to omit the parts that conflict with their religion -- not unlike the Pledge of Allegiance -- but this is a required oath.

The difference between my opinion and his opinion should be apparent: he holds his opinion as fact that all should follow, whereas I hold it as my opinion. As you pointed out, it was a 5-4 vote; I like your use of this as an explicit defense supporting him rather than explicitly pointing out that this indicates that his opinion is wrong, though. I don't think its silly to go on about his ignorance and stupidity is at all unwarranted if everything he says is ignorant and stupid. I'm not going to just repeatedly post potshots at him without provocation, however, if that's what you mean; my only goal is to prevent the ridiculousness from repeatedly being spewed without suitable challenge, after I've at least pointed it out, I don't continue unwarranted.

 

[fskimospy]

I am pretty sure that I made it clear that being a traitor for not saying the pledge in full is my opinion. Serving in the military excuses you from being a traitor since you've shown your allegiance in other ways. Have I been to war for the USA? Nope. Would I if I could / was needed? You're damn right I would. Also, natural-born citizens don't have a "loyalty oath," or something of that nature, I'm guessing because it's implicit that they would be loyal their country of birth. For immigrants, there is the Oath of Allegiance, of which they are permitted to omit the parts that conflict with their religion -- not unlike the Pledge of Allegiance -- but this is a required oath.

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.

The difference between my opinion and his opinion should be apparent: he holds his opinion as fact that all should follow, whereas I hold it as my opinion. As you pointed out, it was a 5-4 vote; I like your use of this as an explicit defense supporting him rather than explicitly pointing out that this indicates that his opinion is wrong, though. I don't think its silly to go on about his ignorance and stupidity is at all unwarranted if everything he says is ignorant and stupid, but I'm not going to just repeatedly post potshots at him without provocation, if that's what you mean.

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.