Supreme Court: Opening prayers at council meetings ok

[JEDIYoda]

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?

who cares about atheists??? they can suck it in a deal with it!! If they are true atheists it should not bother them!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Two wrongs make a right?

that's always a nice copout......I am sorry to burst your bubble but I really do not see two wrongs....

 

[JD50]

Expressing your desire to be protected from any exposure to religion is not correcting me, it is merely expressing your opinion on government's preferred purpose. In this case, SCOTUS disagrees that you have the right to be so protected.

Once again, who is saying this and what does that have to do with the OP?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Tradition is a poor argument to continue an unconstitutional practice.

unconstitutional how so......all I see in this thread are a lot of Atheists crying and not understanding the issue.....

In fact most atheists would say abolish the prayer and let the Christians deal with it.....

Why do atheists feel they are so special??

 

[realibrad]

unconstitutional how so......all I see in this thread are a lot of Atheists crying and not understanding the issue.....

In fact most atheists would say abolish the prayer and let the Christians deal with it.....

Why do atheists feel they are so special??

That is a Straw Man argument.

I will say to you what I said before.

The issue is that by using government resources such as time, money, land ect, the government is effectively taxing its citizens to use for religious purposes. If a group wants to pray on their time, fine. If a group wants to pray on government's time, that is a problem.

Respond to that argument, not this fake one that anyone who has a problem with this ruling wants religion stripped so they never have to hear religion.

 

[alzan]

unconstitutional how so......all I see in this thread are a lot of Atheists crying and not understanding the issue.....

In fact most atheists would say abolish the prayer and let the Christians deal with it.....

Why do atheists feel they are so special??

"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."

1st amendment forbids government establishment/endorsement of religion, the 14th amendment enjoins the states.

Why do theists feel they are so special?

 

[shira]

Yes, I am, for the reasons I outlined above.

I'm sure that you concur that beliefs against allowing gays to marry are invalid, and are not deserving of "accommodations" to espouse those views.

I disagree with views against same-sex marriage, but a religious prayer that expressed that view would NOT be an "invalid" prayer. Thus, if the SCOTUS is telling us that time must be made available for prayers prior to government meetings, then EVERY religious group that wants the opportunity to publicly pray in that venue must be given the chance to do so. That doesn't mean they get to pray at every meeting; it means they would be given a "prayer slot" just like every other religious group would that expressed the desire to publicly pray. So we might hear a "anti-same-sex-marriage prayer" once a month or once a year; the frequency would depend on how many groups are competing for prayer time.

Contrary to what you state, it's not the government's job to tell us what prayers are "valid" or "invalid." That would be equivalent to the government telling us which religions are valid or invalid. As long as the religious expression is not inherently illegal, the prayer is "valid."

 

[realibrad]

Funny how you ask for a response to the actual issue, and nobody responds.

 

[zinfamous]

who cares about atheists??? they can suck it in a deal with it!! If they are true atheists it should not bother them!

I agree with this.

but:

that's always a nice copout......I am sorry to burst your bubble but I really do not see two wrongs....

No, that is exactly what he said: It's OK to do it this way because these other people did it this way before! (and everyone agrees that was wrong).

That is, exactly "two wrongs = a right." The only cop-out is the person trying to use that broken logic. It is only acceptable to simple-minded individuals. It doesn't surprise me, then, that you blindly line up behind this broken logic.

 

[alzan]

Funny how you ask for a response to the actual issue, and nobody responds.

Sad, actually; but I get your point.

 

[werepossum]

The government spends resources on a lot of things with which I don't agree.

Prayer at official government meetings by an elected or appointed official is inappropriate and unconstitutional.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why would I want to thank, publicly or privately, random genetic mutations?

Just remember, you're disagreeing with SCOTUS this time, not just me.

You used a lot of words that did not relate to the actual issue. The issue is that by using government resources such as time, money, land ect, the government is effectively taxing its citizens to use for religious purposes. If a group wants to pray on their time, fine. If a group wants to pray on government's time, that is a problem.

Respond to that argument, not this fake one that anyone who has a problem with this ruling wants religion stripped so they never have to hear religion.

Disagree. The clergy are not paid, and the building costs exactly the same to operate regardless of whether that time is spent praying or for another purpose. The only way you can justify your point is by defining ANY prayer on public property as establishing a state religion, for that is what the Constitution specifically prohibits. That is the essence of freedom FROM religion, something for which you claim to not be advocating.

It's one thing to point out how the Founding Fathers did not make the nation live up to its Declaration of Independence (e.g. slavery) or even its Constitution (e.g. gay marriage, arguably.) It's quite another to argue that the Founding Fathers simply weren't smart enough to realize that by starting pretty much every meeting and government function with an invocation for G-d's blessing, they were in fact establishing a state religion. In fact, you'd have to argue that for two hundred years Americans weren't bright enough to figure this out. Considering that the people who are supposedly smarter than all previous Americans are the same people unable to provide for their own health care, day care, birth control, etc. AND unable to decide what to have for lunch without government regulation, this shades into parody.

Funny how you ask for a response to the actual issue, and nobody responds.

Actually rather a lot of people responded. You just don't like the responses.

 

[Thebobo]

lol here comes the backlash. Thinking about a religion for myself and what to name it. Any ideas?

Flying Spaghetti Monster Minister Delivers Opening Prayer for City Council Meeting

 

[IronWing]

Just remember, you're disagreeing with SCOTUS this time, not just me.

Understood. I think the Supremes are wrong on this.

Disagree. The clergy are not paid, and the building costs exactly the same to operate regardless of whether that time is spent praying or for another purpose. The only way you can justify your point is by defining ANY prayer on public property as establishing a state religion, for that is what the Constitution specifically prohibits. That is the essence of freedom FROM religion, something for which you claim to not be advocating.

In this case, a government official, in carrying out the duties of office, is offering a prayer or directing the offering of a prayer. This is very different than a non-governmental actor offering a prayer in a public space or even on public time. In this case, the government is offering religious expression as a part of a function of government. The prayer isn't the issue. Who is offering the prayer and in what capacity they are offering the prayer is the issue. If every single member of a town council wants to hold hands and say a prayer in unison prior to the beginning of a public meeting, in the council chambers, I'm fine with that. Opening the public meeting with a prayer is the problem. Now the council is using public office in promoting their religious views in violation of the anti-establishment clause.

 

[JD50]

Understood. I think the Supremes are wrong on this.



In this case, a government official, in carrying out the duties of office, is offering a prayer or directing the offering of a prayer. This is very different than a non-governmental actor offering a prayer in a public space or even on public time. In this case, the government is offering religious expression as a part of a function of government. The prayer isn't the issue. Who is offering the prayer and in what capacity they are offering the prayer is the issue. If every single member of a town council wants to hold hands and say a prayer in unison prior to the beginning of a public meeting, in the council chambers, I'm fine with that. Opening the public meeting with a prayer is the problem. Now the council is using public office in promoting their religious views in violation of the anti-establishment clause.

:thumbsup:

 

[alzan]

Just remember, you're disagreeing with SCOTUS this time, not just me.


Disagree. The clergy are not paid, and the building costs exactly the same to operate regardless of whether that time is spent praying or for another purpose. The only way you can justify your point is by defining ANY prayer on public property as establishing a state religion, for that is what the Constitution specifically prohibits. That is the essence of freedom FROM religion, something for which you claim to not be advocating.

It's one thing to point out how the Founding Fathers did not make the nation live up to its Declaration of Independence (e.g. slavery) or even its Constitution (e.g. gay marriage, arguably.) It's quite another to argue that the Founding Fathers simply weren't smart enough to realize that by starting pretty much every meeting and government function with an invocation for G-d's blessing, they were in fact establishing a state religion. In fact, you'd have to argue that for two hundred years Americans weren't bright enough to figure this out. Considering that the people who are supposedly smarter than all previous Americans are the same people unable to provide for their own health care, day care, birth control, etc. AND unable to decide what to have for lunch without government regulation, this shades into parody.


Actually rather a lot of people responded. You just don't like the responses.

That is neither an unknown or uncomfortable situation.

Bolded: Speaking only for myself, it's more that allowing prayer is the government "establishing state religion". It's not that it's Wiccan, Islam, FSM, Christianity <shudder> , etc., it's that it's a government stance of "religion: positive" vs. "religion: neutral". I'm not discounting at all the value religion can have on an individual and even societal basis, nor am I holding a mirror up to religion(s) and saying "look at all the bad you've done and continue to do".

Adherents of all faiths or none are better served by a secular government that tolerates no shenanigans by it's members, however well-intentioned or sincerely meant.

 

[werepossum]

That is neither an unknown or uncomfortable situation.

Bolded: Speaking only for myself, it's more that allowing prayer is the government "establishing state religion". It's not that it's Wiccan, Islam, FSM, Christianity <shudder> , etc., it's that it's a government stance of "religion: positive" vs. "religion: neutral". I'm not discounting at all the value religion can have on an individual and even societal basis, nor am I holding a mirror up to religion(s) and saying "look at all the bad you've done and continue to do".

Adherents of all faiths or none are better served by a secular government that tolerates no shenanigans by it's members, however well-intentioned or sincerely meant.

But government is under no restriction whatsoever to not represent religion as a positive force. The First Amendment reads:

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.

You're arguing that the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech should both be infringed to avoid government sending a message supporting religion. Only laws establishing a religion are prohibited, and that was included specifically to avoid the British example of a state religion where non-members were disadvantaged.

EDIT: That is the reason Jefferson wrote of a "wall between Church and State" rather than a "wall between G-d and State".

 

[zinfamous]

Just remember, you're disagreeing with SCOTUS this time, not just me.


Disagree. The clergy are not paid, and the building costs exactly the same to operate regardless of whether that time is spent praying or for another purpose. The only way you can justify your point is by defining ANY prayer on public property as establishing a state religion, for that is what the Constitution specifically prohibits. That is the essence of freedom FROM religion, something for which you claim to not be advocating.

It's one thing to point out how the Founding Fathers did not make the nation live up to its Declaration of Independence (e.g. slavery) or even its Constitution (e.g. gay marriage, arguably.) It's quite another to argue that the Founding Fathers simply weren't smart enough to realize that by starting pretty much every meeting and government function with an invocation for G-d's blessing, they were in fact establishing a state religion. In fact, you'd have to argue that for two hundred years Americans weren't bright enough to figure this out. Considering that the people who are supposedly smarter than all previous Americans are the same people unable to provide for their own health care, day care, birth control, etc. AND unable to decide what to have for lunch without government regulation, this shades into parody.


Actually rather a lot of people responded. You just don't like the responses.

I still want to see hands raised form those who support this decision, that would be perfectly fine with any US city council opening with an Islamic prayer, a Jewish prayer, an invocation to whatever scientology god, to Mormon Jesus, a prayer to Quetzlcoatl, pipes played for Pan, etc. That acknowledgment strikes me as the only way this is constitutional.

Arguing that certain established religions are more acceptable than others is not an argument of law, and is a de-facto attempt to establish a religion, which is verbotten.

Honestly, I see no problem with opening each meeting with a prayer to all international faiths, in all native tongues. It would probably take about 4 or 5 hours? Probably more work than would get done otherwise, anyway. And it's pretty much what these people are asking for when they go down this route. You can call that a slippery slope, but it is quite the opposite--Supporters want to say this isn't about Christianity (We aren't saying only Christians can pray!)--except we don't want any other religious prayer..."because tradition."

 

[alzan]

But government is under no restriction whatsoever to not represent religion as a positive force. The First Amendment reads:



You're arguing that the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech should both be infringed to avoid government sending a message supporting religion. Only laws establishing a religion are prohibited, and that was included specifically to avoid the British example of a state religion where non-members were disadvantaged.

EDIT: That is the reason Jefferson wrote of a "wall between Church and State" rather than a "wall between G-d and State".

As much as I've enjoyed the Star Wars saga and plotline, I don't think it's governments duty to promulgate one man's fictional spiritual belief system to it's citizenry.

Not at all. Elected or appointed government officials at every government level have every opportunity to pray/chant/meditate/etc. before official government sessions. To wait until just before a meeting is officially begun (or sometimes after) to invoke their deity for whatever purpose is not only not part of their official government duty but damned arrogant.

Well then they should have wrote the 1st Amendment differently. Perhaps it should be amended.

 

[werepossum]

I still want to see hands raised form those who support this decision, that would be perfectly fine with any US city council opening with an Islamic prayer, a Jewish prayer, an invocation to whatever scientology god, to Mormon Jesus, a prayer to Quetzlcoatl, pipes played for Pan, etc. That acknowledgment strikes me as the only way this is constitutional.

Arguing that certain established religions are more acceptable than others is not an argument of law, and is a de-facto attempt to establish a religion, which is verbotten.

Honestly, I see no problem with opening each meeting with a prayer to all international faiths, in all native tongues. It would probably take about 4 or 5 hours? Probably more work than would get done otherwise, anyway. And it's pretty much what these people are asking for when they go down this route. You can call that a slippery slope, but it is quite the opposite--Supporters want to say this isn't about Christianity (We aren't saying only Christians can pray!)--except we don't want any other religious prayer..."because tradition."

I believe Greece has already held Jewish, Protestant, Mormon and Catholic prayers. Personally I'm fine with prayers from any religious institution that represents a significant part of the community, including Muslim. A quick perusal of the Greece NY Yellow Pages shows various Catholic and Protestant churches as well as Jewish, Baha'i, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Christian Scientist, and several Buddhist establishments. Granted, many of those are in Rochester and may not apply to Greece, but any local church (or nearby church serving locals) wishing to deliver a well-wishing prayer asking G-d's blessing should be able to do so. Quetzlcoatl and Pan would be pushing things since there are no such churches in the area. (Of course, I'm assuming they would have a phone . . .)

I think if you start attending services you'll find that Christians are a lot more accepting of other good religious folks than you believe, whether or not we accept their dogma. (Not that I've darkened the door of any religious establishments in the last four decades except for funerals and marriages.)

EDIT: Left out Unitarian/Pentacostal.

 

[IronWing]

I still want to see hands raised form those who support this decision, that would be perfectly fine with any US city council opening with an Islamic prayer, a Jewish prayer, an invocation to whatever scientology god, to Mormon Jesus, a prayer to Quetzlcoatl, pipes played for Pan, etc. That acknowledgment strikes me as the only way this is constitutional.

Arguing that certain established religions are more acceptable than others is not an argument of law, and is a de-facto attempt to establish a religion, which is verbotten.

Honestly, I see no problem with opening each meeting with a prayer to all international faiths, in all native tongues. It would probably take about 4 or 5 hours? Probably more work than would get done otherwise, anyway. And it's pretty much what these people are asking for when they go down this route. You can call that a slippery slope, but it is quite the opposite--Supporters want to say this isn't about Christianity (We aren't saying only Christians can pray!)--except we don't want any other religious prayer..."because tradition."

Unfortunately the court majority also said that government can pick its favorite brand of religious expression and run with it to the exclusion of all others. It is an all-around horrible decision.

 

[Retro Rob]

Contrary to what you state, it's not the government's job to tell us what prayers are "valid" or "invalid." That would be equivalent to the government telling us which religions are valid or invalid. As long as the religious expression is not inherently illegal, the prayer is "valid."

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. I think the Gov should deem certain prayers invalid if they contain illegal material, or "anti-American" rhetoric.

There is a radical segment of Islam that is under the opinion that Western Society should be done away with using the sword of Islam.

I'm guessing you'd be OK with a prayer from a person who deeply hold these views for the sake of fairness. After all, I am fairly confident that we have some of those idiots in this country.

 

[emperus]

Why is it necessary that a government meeting open with a prayer?

 

[Orignal Earl]

unconstitutional how so......all I see in this thread are a lot of Atheists crying and not understanding the issue.....

In fact most atheists would say abolish the prayer and let the Christians deal with it.....

Why do atheists feel they are so special??

Man, the atheists down there have it rough
I was reading they are hated more then any other groups

http://thesocietypages.org/files/2013/03/American-Sociological-Review-2006-Edgell-211-341.pdf

 

[emperus]

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. I think the Gov should deem certain prayers invalid if they contain illegal material, or "anti-American" rhetoric.

There is a radical segment of Islam that is under the opinion that Western Society should be done away with using the sword of Islam.

I'm guessing you'd be OK with a prayer from a person who deeply hold these views for the sake of fairness. After all, I am fairly confident that we have some of those idiots in this country.

So what do you suggest a commission on whose religion is valid?

 

[Retro Rob]

I
Honestly, I see no problem with opening each meeting with a prayer to all international faiths, in all native tongues. It would probably take about 4 or 5 hours? Probably more work than would get done otherwise, anyway. And it's pretty much what these people are asking for when they go down this route. You can call that a slippery slope, but it is quite the opposite--Supporters want to say this isn't about Christianity (We aren't saying only Christians can pray!)--except we don't want any other religious prayer..."because tradition."

LOL -- I've been reading for years how the US will become a Christian State soon after "God" was put on our money and Pledge of Allegiance.

It's been about 60 years, that fear hasn't come to pass.