"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." (read more)
Dissenting, Justice Kagan wrote...
"I have no doubt that every member of this Court believes as firmly as I that our institutions of government belong equally to all, regardless of faith. Rather, the error reflects two kinds of blindness," Kagan wrote. "First, the majority misapprehends the facts of this case, as distinct from those characterizing traditional legislative prayer. And second, the majority misjudges the essential meaning of the religious worship in Greece's town hall, along with its capacity to exclude and divide."
***
Wikipedia: "The English common name for the order is the mantises, or rarely (using a Latinized plural of Greek mantis), the mantes. The name mantid refers only to members of the family Mantidae. The other common name, often applied to any species in the order, is "praying mantis", because of the typical "prayer-like" posture with folded fore-limbs, although the folk etymology "preying mantis" is sometimes used in reference to their predatory habits."
209 comments:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»Sensible decision.
I like how in the clip she gets so excited about the idea of the female killing and eating her mate. I think most women get that morbid excitement and find humor in such a thing. Can we imagine a man getting excited about the idea if the sexes were reversed. I don't think many of us would find it funny either, but rather kinda gross and sad.
Why are women so evil? Why do we men enjoy them so much even though we know they would kill and eat us all if it was determined that there was sufficient advantage in it, or even if the idea just became fashionable, or made them look younger or thinner.
It reminds me of how women find the Lorena Bobbit type stories funny and identify with the mutilators rather than the victims.
Imagine the outrage if a guy laughed about such a thing happening to a woman.
But, we wouldn't laugh at such a thing though, because we are superior, more advanced, civilized and compassionate. That's why we are usually are on top, unless we are big risk takers or just tired. It's also why we get paid more.
I'm not really a fan of public, civil religiosity, so I'm against the practice, but the Constitution doesn't necessarily need to agree with my opinions on matters.
I am struck by how the Obamacare absolutists (It's Supreme Decided Law! No takebacks!) aren't so absolutist on decisions like this.
It reminds me of how women find the Lorena Bobbit type stories funny and identify with the mutilators rather than the victims.
That sentiment is sort of like how some women (and man-women) laugh and find Crack's antics amusing, even though they are the flip side of what he preaches against. It's a kind of spiritual blindness, IMO.
Is my comment above gonna get me fired or banned from the internet?
Because I can walk that back. I didn't mean to suggest that men are on top because we do what we want. We just do what we're told, and I apolologize if my comments were misunderstood or taken as offensive in anyway. If you are still offended, then please understand my mental handicap due to being serially abused by cheerleaders as a young man.
They got something right?
bagoh20 said...
Can we imagine a man getting excited about the idea if the sexes were reversed. I don't think many of us would find it funny either, but rather kinda gross and sad.
Long ago, good men (I repeats and I says again, Good. Men.) realized women should be loved, honored, and cherished, not mutilated.
Why are women so evil?
Not women.
Feminists.
It's noteworthy that it was 5-4. The minority in this case has a wacked idea of what "establishment" means.
Oh, and this is just one more brick to add to the load of refutation of the claptrap we heard, a few months ago, about how Sotomayor was part of a nefarious Catholic conspiracy to control the Supreme Court.
Evidently, she didn't check her emails from Rome before voting on this case.
I had some hope that Sototmayor might turn out to be a bit less of a standard liberal than expected. So far I'm wrong.
The loss of a single "conservative" justice in the next two years would be a disaster. If Democrats hold the Senate and the presidency, it is inevitable.
Why didn't the majority say which sect's prayers were to be used? Oh, I guess they figure that's the sort of thing that a government city council should fight over.
@Ritmo
Towns tend to have an individual character, so that decision is best made at the local level.
My girlfriend's town in suburban Jersey is very heavily Italian and Catholic.
There's never a fight. People tend to want to live among their own kind.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Why didn't the majority say which sect's prayers were to be used? Oh, I guess they figure that's the sort of thing that a government city council should fight over.
I guess they figure community standards should apply.
The Establishment clause which prevents the Federal government from establishing a particular religion. But, it does allow local regions free expression.
It's true that the clause says "Congress" shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but your second phrase goes to expression. Why not make the obvious leap and let us know if you think it should therefore allow state and local governments respect an establishment of (obviously, a particular) religion, because that's what ~44% of the court (and many millions of Americans) are obviously worried about and how they interpret the issue decided. What's an official government proceeding and what's not? Some people are forgetting (or refusing, it seems?) to draw a line.
The only really interesting political fight I've seen in my girlfriend's hometown took place about seven years ago.
The state Democratic Party tried a power play to force the construction of high density Section 8 housing in town. This was an obvious attempt to flip the political identity of the town.
It was an interesting fight. The Dems lost.
There's never a fight. People tend to want to live among their own kind.
There certainly used to be. And there still is. Italians and Irish Americans weren't always harmoniously co-existing - before they somehow decided that religion should split the difference. So are the all-too-common "mixed" marriages of that sort still "among their own kind"? At some point this becomes unworkable to figure out.
It also reminds me of a comedian who said that white people don't call themselves "white". They give you a percentage - of which parts came from which country. So mingling happens. It horrified Hitler in his observations of America. And now it's going even further. It just takes time. But I can't find a single "pure" English-American any more with roots to the 1790s so I don't see why we should assume more recent immigrants will be perenially isolated, either.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I can't find a single "pure" English-American any more with roots to the 1790s
Ritmo never gets out of Mom's basement, apparently.
"Why not make the obvious leap and let us know if you think it should therefore allow state and local governments respect an establishment"
You responded quickly! I deleted my comment because I wanted to think more about what I said. But, since you responded.
I might be mistaken, but I think the earliest states allowed established religion.
I'm against it, personally. But I'm a low church guy in general. The question is whether the Constitution thinks it should allow such things. That's a different question. Also, in my mind establishment means bringing in state powers to compel religious commitment. I don't see civil prayers extending that much. In the same way that I don't see quoting from a particular movement or text to support some government policy as somehow establishing that text.
People use all sorts of stuff to guide or compel their beliefs. As part of civil society sometimes that matches up with my own and sometimes I am asked to simply respect what it should be.
That we use the establishment clause only in terms of philosophical movements that metaphysical considerations itself seems outdated.
Contemporary people have many religions that do not involve the supernatural or metaphysical, and it seems dangerous to establish those as being superior or beyond reproach as well. I see the term "religion" to include any and all orienting philosophies.
Religious affiliation means something beyond whether you believe in God in the public life of my girlfriend's town.
Her town is situated at the intersection of two major interstates and one major NJ highway. It's very easy to get in and out of NYC in a hurry. This leads to a very reasonable fear of crime spilling out of Jersey City and NYC into the little town.
The town does harbor small minorities of Asians and blacks, but they are all associated with some kind of religious congregation.
To the folks in the town, religious affiliation signals that people lead well ordered lives, that they aren't into dirty business (i.e., crime) and that they will attend well to their property.
It's all part of keeping the town from turning in the wrong direction, something that can happen quite easily.
"It also reminds me of a comedian who said that white people don't call themselves "white"."
Outside of academia or polling, Hispanics don't call themselves Hispanic either. They proudly state their country of origin.
It goes to show how racial divisions are convenient and artificial markers. When absent, people happily find others. France and the Polish plumbers, England with the Irish.
Interestingly you don't find too many English Americans, but the country is filled with Scottish festivals with people of various degrees of accuracy laying claim to Clan origins.
Asians don't call themselves Asian either. Try telling a Korean they're or Filipino they're really in the same group as the Japanese. That's extreme ignorance to do so.
It's really a washing of global history to limit people to racial categories. A very Modern attempt at overgeneralized categorization that sadly was used to justify slavery or other racial evils.
I think I'm a British-American. Far as I can tell, all my family came from England or Scotland or Northern (Protestant) Ireland, on both sides. Even my Oden side, with its strong supposedly Swedish flavoring, ends up with my forebears getting to North Carolina in the 1680s, seemingly from Scotland. Which suggests that whatever Swedish roots I might have likely went aviking a very long time ago, and settled into the lands along with the other invaders and locals that made up Britain.
My most local non-American blood comes from my great-grandmother, who was a Cheeseman who came on a boat from England. Married a King. A King married a McBride.
That's a good response, Paddy. And sorry for responding so quickly!
The earliest states that did that were properly colonies at the time though, as I understand it. I could be wrong but I thought that was pre-ratification.
The interesting idea here is "compulsion". As I read from this excerpt of a report, the case differed from precedents in being a ceremony the plaintiffs were legally required to attend. That sounds like compulsion of a sort.
As far as contemporary or non-metaphysical/non-supernatural philosophies, I'm wondering if your precaution is against such philosophies being invoked implicitly or otherwise as part of a legislative movement or argument. But of course, legislative debate has a lot more leeway and no one (liberals included) never complain that a legislator lacks constitutional grounds to appeal to traditional religions when speaking his mind on the floor of the chamber. That's always been available and never appealed that a legislator is guided by traditional morals in arguing on behalf of their bills. They might question the relevance, but never the right.
"Filipinos aren't even a single distinct racial group."
I have Filipino friends who say they're not even Asian but Pacific Islanders.
Hispanics also don't fit racial categories, that's why there's the awkward addition to polls: "white, not of hispanic origin."
Interestingly you don't find too many English Americans, but the country is filled with Scottish festivals with people of various degrees of accuracy laying claim to Clan origins.
Heh. The Scottish influence on the Anglo-American enlightenment is said to be important, as it is to American heritage generally. (I'm reading up on James I's fasinating and unlikely ascension to a shortly thereafter unifed British throne, without which it's unknown the extent to which this would have occurred).
But I'm assuming their contribution to the lineages must have been prolific and as mixed as the Irish.
A sidenote to this - I work with a very proud and extremely knowledgeable second-generation Irish American, who takes St. Patrick's Day and the like much more seriously than those very numerous people to whom he derisevely refers as the "once-a-year-Irish". ;-)
Are "Renaissance festivals" an homage to the English or not? I never thought so but then I downloaded a ton of late Tudor lute music and figured it must be.
Whether prayers before town council (or state or federal legislative) sessions is a good or bad idea...
It's silly to suggest that inviting different people, even different clergy, to give prayers is an "establishment" of religion.
Even having a paid chaplain -- as the Congress does -- doesn't "establish" any religion. What religion? Was the Catholic Church "established" when the chaplain was a Catholic priest? Who really thought this was the case?
The interesting idea here is "compulsion".
Yeah, that's the bar. I've attended Jewish and Muslim events and not felt compelled. I think it's a fine line. Indeed the reason I'm not concerned about ceremonial prayers is precisely why I'm against them personally.
And no problem about the response. I guess I should have just kept it.
The earliest Christians were martyred because they would not worship the emperor. Rome was fine with any religious belief but you had to offer your sacrifice to Caesar and get your receipt. That's compulsion. Where there's material or physical harm in refraining from worship.
Simply being in a room where people are praying is not itself compulsion. But, of course, there are ways governments can make life harder or easier for people depending on what orienting philosophy they have. Which should be entirely illegal and punished.
As a practice, civil prayers can become a celebration of diversity of place. So, there is a benefit to such. So, I think the Constitution rightly leaves it undecided.
Which genius British King established a religion under the State's thumb in the first place?
Was it the same king who railed against divorce as well as the death penalty?
Herman's Hermits
Yeah, that's the bar. I've attended Jewish and Muslim events and not felt compelled.
Respectfully though, that's because you've chosen to do. As I've chosen to do so. However, I'm pretty sure I would feel differently if upon election to a public body in America I was made to do so. I think non-governmental celebrations are different.
You and Father Martin Fox both mention diversifying the practices - which I don't believe was an issue in the case decided. Although they've been used in the past to bypass allegations of endorsing/establishing a presumed single, i.e. "superior" belief - and for whatever other good we can see in doing that.
I agree that simply standing in a room isn't compulsion, unless they are legally compelled to be there. "Prayer breakfasts" have a pretty strong tradition - and that's at the federal level.
But they were never compulsory. They weren't required as part of the job of working in a federal, elected office.
Maybe it sounds like a small distinction but it seems that's what makes this case different. It seems to be a key part of the litigation - or else it doesn't seem like it would have had reason to be heard.
Which genius British King established a religion under the State's thumb in the first place?
You're being ahistorical - or "presentist". States (esp. in Europe) were all religious entities at the time. The radical change you later suggest he should have made came later, in 1791.
Was it the same king who railed against divorce as well as the death penalty?
He was pro-divorce as a choice (as U.S. and most civil laws are) and that had to do with ensuring his succession in a young dynasty with a questionable grip on power as a man who was married off to his dead brother's wife (which he thought was biblically forbidden anyway) so that he could find someone with enough life left to bear sons.
Death "penalties" weren't even questioned until a few centuries later. More presentism.
There are things to make fun of historical figures for. But not for not conforming to morals that people didn't figure out until centuries later. Progress is not just a scientific thing.
And actually, Henry was pissed because he could have (and for whatever reason, expected to) receive(d) an annullment, as was common practice for popes to do. The guy didn't have any sons - he was concerned about succession - perfectly annull-able affair for any self-respecting pope as intertwined with kings as they were at the time in which to intervene.
There were probably political hesitations, as well. Popes were very political actors. And still sometimes are - depending on what your politics is and the pope at the time.
IN any event, the next wife bore Elizabeth I, one of England's most important monarch who reigned over her defeat of the Spanish Armada and England's ensuing supremacy in the seas and strong claim to North America.
If it weren't for Henry right now you'd be speaking Spanish, Chickie. And we know how Southern Californian conservatives feel about that, right?
;-)
Does anyone here think Kagan really believes that saying some innocuous prayer before a town council gets down to business is going to "exclude" any non-Christians or atheists in attendance? Or that it's going to foster "division?" I don't think she believes one word of the claptrap she employs in the service of the final full secular/pagan country she, as a good leftist foot soldier, is intent on marching us towards.
What if the Muslims of your town made you recite one of their "innocuous" prayers first, ric?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Which genius British King established a religion under the State's thumb in the first place?
You're being ahistorical - or "presentist". States (esp. in Europe) were all religious entities at the time. The radical change you later suggest he should have made came later, in 1791.
A good point (hey, when he's right...), but the term, "Establishment of Religion", does refer to the Anglican Establishment.
I'm not really a fan of public, civil religiosity, so I'm against the practice, but the Constitution doesn't necessarily need to agree with my opinions on matters.
I think it's probably a real bad decision. Does that mean it's constitutional for satanists to do the invocations?
But the SC is the final arbiter. I accept their decisions even if I don't agree with them.
I have no problem with religious people. I generally love them, and I respect Christianity, but:
I just don't know why Christians or any other religious persuasion feels it is necessary to have a formal religious expression at a government meeting in this country. Even if it is legal, I would never promote that practice. It is exclusionary, and unnecessary. I read it as similar to leftists requiring political obedience at university or anywhere they have the clout to do it. Just because you can do something legally does not make it a good idea. It's a government function. Is that really where you want to worship? You can't resist that? Why are you really doing it? Is it worth it? Is it respectful and open toward all the individuals in that community? Should that be a priority?
"Or that it's going to foster "division?"
I think it does, or at least it would in many cases. I'm not religious, nor am I anti-religion, but I would feel less than equal where this is practiced, and definitely if I was a practicing believer in a different religion.
bagoh, I'm with you on that. In fact, that's a big reason why I think Christians have a lot of blame for what they now see as attacks on them. They set up the system that once the majority shifted led to the same assumptions turning and biting them in the ass.
It's the Puritan instinct. But I'm a Roger Williams sort of guy. Wait, not in a being a great batter then having my head cut off and frozen sort of way. I'm entirely against that latter part and don't even care for baseball. In a state corrupts religion I'm going to help found Rhode Island sort of way. Except for the founding of Rhode Island, as its already been found, and if I came and "found" it again that would be silly. Unless I enslaved all the residents and claimed it for California, then I'd be like Columbus and get a holiday named after me.
I have no idea what I was saying now.
Oh right, I'm against prayer as a civil expression but I don't think the Constitution cares one way or another.
Same reason why I'm against prayers in schools. Which makes me a suspicious sort of social conservative.
This is very different from prayers in schools because school children aren't the same as adults who can freely take them or leave them, the prayers, that is. That's why the Supreme Court ruled against prayers in public schools.
Well, the really interesting test case will come along after 5,000 Muslims move to a town, dominate it demographically, and then require the first Christian elected to city council to go along with their mandatory opening prayer for the beginning of legislative council meetings.
Of course, I have a strong idea of what FOX News would say at that point, based on their fears of sharia law being implemented across America. But it will be funny to watch how it would take something like that to finally get their attention and a reversal of such a ridiculous ruling.
It doesn't sound like you read the case, Lydia.
I can't seem to find the Freedom from Religion clause in the 1st Amendment. At the same time Freedom of Religion still appears to be intact, however, I don't see that it is mandatory, so therefore, you can or cannot accept that religious prayer can convene prior to a meeting of people who lawfully have assembled. At the same time, you can easily just walk outside until it's over and come back. But hey, sensibility never into the equation of this lawsuit now did it?
However, I'm pretty sure I would feel differently if upon election to a public body in America I was made to do so.
Upon election to a public office (of which I hold on a very minor level) or becoming a Notary Public (which I no longer am) you are REQUIRED to say the following or something like this
"I, _Dust Bunny Queen, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. So help me God was optional.
Or something like that. (I always felt like I should be Rambo when defending the Constitution) Maybe I should get some new camo hunting gear?
BUT....the point is that I was compelled to take the oath....HOWEVER, I wasn't really compelled. All I had to do was nothing and I wouldn't have to take the oath.
Frankly, I am uncomfortable when we have a public prayer at a civic function. It just seems awkward and uncomfortable since prayer in public belongs in the church of your choice. Nevertheless....I just shut up, clasp my hands and examine my shoes. Ohhh...I, wow, am really due for some new shoes, these guys are worn out.... and man my toe nail polish looks like shit....Um...what? are we done.
But the SC is the final arbiter.
For now. Let's see if they reverse their ruling in 30 years once the first Christian elected to the city council of a town run by Muslims objects to being required to attend their opening benedictions.
I can't seem to find the Freedom from Religion clause in the 1st Amendment. At the same time Freedom of Religion still appears to be intact, however, I don't see that it is mandatory, so therefore, you can or cannot accept that religious prayer can convene prior to a meeting of people who lawfully have assembled. At the same time, you can easily just walk outside until it's over and come back. But hey, sensibility never into the equation of this lawsuit now did it?
To address the point made above. It is the compelling of religious obediance and belonging to the religious instituion.
If you didn't belong to the "Church" then you were ostracized: no jobs for you. No government appointments or contracts Ostracized or worse. Killed as heretics. This is EXACTLY what is happening in the Islamic world. Especially the last part....the death stuff.
This is why the Founders put in the clause about ESTABLISHMENT of religion. Not that there should be no religion....but that there should be no Government favored established religion.
@Ritmo
There is a town in NJ where what you suggest is happening. That would be Patterson, where immigrant Muslims are pushing out blacks.
In general, this is seen as a positive by the Christians in the surrounding communities because the Muslims are hard working, determined to become prosperous and bourgeois in their personal habits.
In other words, Muslims are gentrifying Patterson.
I go shopping in the open air market in Patterson, which is entirely run by Muslims.
Phx:
To answer your question, I think inviting a Satanist to give the invocation would be constitutional.
I'm not advocating it, for reasons I needn't spell out.
I think one (or more) New England states had explicitly religious founding communities for whom it seemed natural to continue promoting for a time (i.e. Puritanism before ratification), but I don't know that that was the case everywhere. It probably felt natural for those fleeing religious persecution to do so, but of course not all states' founders did. Interestingly, the antebellum south was seen as the more secular region.
The other important northern state was PA, founded by Quakers and esp. WIlliam Penn but in such a way as to promote tolerance. He/they considered it a religious edict to set-up a "holy experiment" in ecumenicism whereby so many Christian sects could all be allowed to have their places of worship founded and allowed to flourish undisturbed.
The result is that there's some Quaker influence, but even moreso an influence of just a very tolerant atmosphere (which can sometimes go too far).
Read Albion's Seed for some more details on this. Great book.
Muslims or anyone can be allowed to gentrify any town, ST. The question is what people would think of their requiring a Muslim prayer before town councils. I get the impression you'd be cool with it, but I'm not sure that's a widespread opinion. Again, the question comes down to government vs. non-government functions.
"the Freedom from Religion clause"
That is hitting on a key theme. France deliberately rejected religion in its revolution and establishment in the decade following us. So, it's not like the people of that era were religiously besotted rubes.
The Constitution was clearly written in light of a coordination with religion and a freedom of religious expression, not a rejection of religion having any part of the faith. And there were many contentious issues back then, much more than even today.
How would an Irishman feel upon being in a situation where a Protestant minister was leading a prayer in the 1700s? Yet, that's what America was about. Getting us used to finding unity through the diversity, not unity through conformity. And that means being willing to put up with other people's weird beliefs about communion or which was Abraham's favorite son or how many gods there are or aren't. The trouble is that people got used to power and tried to assert such power in the same way that the old countries were doing. So, there had to be some line. But it wasn't an abolishing either religion or feeling alienation.
Not talking about religion is like not talking about sex. It can lead to dangerous repression that works itself out in perverse ways. So, we have a discussion, neutering it by making it civil, and letting people feel they've done their expressing so they don't get hyped up in the repression and get mess everywhere then die.
Which is what happened with Australian marsupials and in the French Revolution.
Sounds like more than half the bench is more concerned with their "rights and sensitivities" than I am, ed. I'm just not convinced they realize it yet.
“…the challengers in the New York case argued that the meetings of the Greece town board were different [from a 1983 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Nebraska legislature’s opening prayers], because members of the public who sought action from the board were legally required to attend and were not simply part of a passive audience — drawing attention to themselves if they declined to participate in a prayer that was contrary to their beliefs.”
I don’t think “drawing attention to themselves” rises to the same level as school children having to withstand the pressures presented by a school system’s practice of recitation of prayers.
I don't see why every right held by a child would be lost upon becoming an adult, Lydia. Some might be lost, but not all.
Lydia:
It's hard to imagine that anyone was prevented from stepping out of the room during the prayer. Did they have guards at the doors?
Public prayer embarrasses me. But that's me. When people are doing it around me I'm going la la la la la .
And then throughout the day, and this is a bit schitzo, I honestly do feel like I'm conversing directly with God. All the time. Every day.
That's what makes the public prayer embarrassing. It's utterly non conversational, formalized, ritualized, and I'm certain God has no interest in that. They are talking to somebody I don't recognize.
Group prayer for affecting a specific thing is different. That is powerful, because it is united concentration of focused psychic energy for a specified target, say, to heal. I feel I have personal experience of it working. My being alive to type this is proof. To me.
Public admissions of prayer are also embarrassing. "Our prayers go out to you" or "I pray for you." stated glibly on Twitter or t.v. or some such, I'm ever tempted to go,"Really? You are going to sit down and pray about that specifically, or merely televise the sentiment?" I doubt the sincerity of other people saying they're praying for something when I expect they are more involved in their own lives too much for that sort of thing.
I do not respond negatively to insincerity. Genuinely religious people are sincere. That's why I like them. But I still go la la la la la la when they drag me into their group things. And the people on t.v. that squeeze their eyes and deliver an ernest formal monologue to God for the ears of humans *click* I cannot get off of it fast enough. Embarrassed.
Editing problem there, I do not respond well, changed incorrectly. Meant I respond negatively.
As it says, Father Martin Fox - they "were legally required to attend." So if you're advocating (even in jest) civil disobedience to a ruling now endorsed by the Supreme Court that you would otherwise appear to support, it's hard to see how we get a society capable of resolving a simple constitutional dispute.
Lol. So I take it Chip would not be a fan of televangelism. ;-)
Looking at the video of the council's prayer, I see a fairly "passive audience" and nary a whiff of compulsion.
Is group praying as part of a political/government function even really in line with Christian teaching. I'm a compete no-nothing, but it seems like something the real life Jesus would not have been pushing on people.
You know, jury nullification's been known to make changes at the local level, but not federally. The SCOTUS doesn't have a jury. It's supposed to say what's legal, and that requirement, simply by being a requirement, is.
We look to SCOTUS to legitimize the laws. Not to say that their own rulings are bs and not to be respected as legal endorsements. You really need to indulge your love of anarchy and laws and rulings that are supposed to be disobeyed away from the bench. And away from legislative activity.
"[L]egally required to attend" does not mean "legally required to participate."
R&B, when you report for jury duty as you are "legally required to do," and if chosen have to sit through all those God-fearing oaths, are you offended?
I'll bet Chip is embarrassed.
For me, it's not about compulsion so much as it is a very public suggestion that followers of the religion being honored with payer are somehow more welcome, more in power, more inside the circle.
I'm pretty sure all U.S. jurisdictions either do or are allowed to offer non-God based affirmations. You might want to check that one out.
I think some of you could afford to do a better job to distinguish governmental and non-governmental authority here. It's interesting that Chickie thinks a government-constituted body (jury) gets its authority over your testimony and judgment through God, though. I'll remember that the next time he reminds me that Obama is not an agent of God.
Interesting line of thought, though. I'll have to consider it some more.
Exactly. 9:51.
Lydia said...
Looking at the video of the council's prayer, I see a fairly "passive audience" and nary a whiff of compulsion.
Exactly. The issue here is whether they should be allowed to pray at all, not whether others must be forced to participate.
Suppose the hypothetical: all of the council members wish to pray but are forbidden to do so by D.C. decree.
Bagoh20:
Well, as Justice Scalia has said, lots of ideas may be bad policy, but that doesn't mean they violate the constitution.
"Is group praying as part of a political/government function even really in line with Christian teaching."
I don't think so. But the trouble is that Christianity was founded in a minority position and developed in a persecuted context. So, the underlying theology really has nothing to say about being in power. Well, that's not true. Love your neighbor isn't excused.
Constantine is usually setup as the guy to blame. But really he was a very complicated guy who was very Roman still. Syncretism abounds in philosophy and governing. He mandated religious freedom. Toleration.
But that opened the door for fanatics to assert their way about the holy way, and in that seeming zealous but not seeming like Christ. And as Christianity grew in influence it got to the point it was culturally then imperially prioritized, which invites the wrong sorts into power and the wrong sorts solidify their power by manipulating the cause for their own ends.
Like the race baiters. So, you have the Elmer Gantry's in the bureaucracy of Constantinople, mixed in with the occasional true believers. The really zealous ones, though, took religion so seriously they left that world and moved to the desert or worked with the poor.
Civil religion is almost always an expression of corrupt religion. Henry VIII was the defender of the Faith, the faith being Catholicism until he decided he wanted a new Queen. His faith was himself.
The story continues with the Puritans, and go down the list, a mix of good and bad, civil religion inviting the mix. Encouraging a public morality at times (good) and good ethics in work and community (good), but becoming capricious and excusing of people in power (bad). Which doesn't make it all bad, but when the guy who started it all says pray in the closet not in public it seems like that should be taking more seriously.
Well there is something about people who pray in the marketplace. Not that I think that everyone who prays publicly is trying to impress their neighbor.
Overall I think it's something that can be resolved by all parties treating each other with empathy and respect. When you reach out to people that way who think differently than you do about things they're more likely to be thoughtful and understanding.
bagoh20 said...
For me, it's not about compulsion so much as it is a very public suggestion that followers of the religion being honored with payer are somehow more welcome, more in power, more inside the circle.
"Honored with payer" is a hilarious typo and really exposes the root of the problem.
There is no such hypothetical, Chicken. No one's ever been prevented from praying voluntarily by the U.S. Constitution. Not even a group of legislators. There may be the same time and place issues as all other speech contains, but your hypothetical as posed is nonsense.
As you can expect, Paddy - I think you're being too hard on Henry. His faith was his dynasty and that priority seemed to work for the betterment of human history. The Spanish tradition ca. 1500 - 1600 doesn't seem like it could have come up with a bill of rights or constitution by 1790. But maybe I'm being too harsh on the purifying effects of the Inquisition.
Suppose today's decision had been the reverse, R&B: how would rules and policy have devolved from that SCOTUS decision: "If at least one member objects, prayer is forbidden; if no one objects, prayer is allowed?
Explain
"It's interesting that Chickie thinks a government-constituted body (jury) gets its authority over your testimony and judgment through God"
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Just saying.
In between "forbidden" and "allowed" Chickie there's this huge gray area called "voluntary". I suggest you look into it. The SCOTUS did. They just decided wrongly.
Actually it was "allowed". It was "required". You didn't read the case, either. Apparently. And I just mean the most meager of summaries. Or perhaps you prefer the Fox-Lydia approach of making light of requirements and saying we should take rulings to the SCOTUS just so we can disobey their judgements with civil disobedience. Well, I guess that shows your respect for what they decide.
"... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Just saying.
But I don't see where you got by saying it. THe clause was showing a direct link between a creation force and people to illustrate natural rights, thereby bypassing government entirely in that chain.
The thing is that we should not need the SCOTUS (government) to tell people this is not how to run a public government function. I bet that most of those supporting the prayer would oppose it if it was another religion than their own. Christians sitting through a Wiccan ceremony before they can conduct government business with each other? I think that would test the concept pretty well.
Sorry - meant to say "wasn't allowed".
Or perhaps you prefer the Fox-Lydia approach of making light of requirements and saying we should take rulings to the SCOTUS just so we can disobey their judgements with civil disobedience.
Lydia often gives some of the best supporting links and arguments in many of the contentious discussions here, R&B. Don't "Foxify" her.
"But I don't see where you got by saying it"
That clause is the justification (authority) for forming a new government separate from what existed. Thus, the authority of all the law comes from God. At least, that was their story.
Well to be fair, Bag - the priest did say that a Satanist could conduct the ceremony, but he has yet to chime in on whether he agrees it's right that they could require it (as the ruling allows) - and apparently force the good Christians to run out in protest in order to make their now un-Constitutional point.
Christians sitting through a Wiccan ceremony before they can conduct government business with each other? I think that would test the concept pretty well.
Well maybe not a ceremony, but the city council of Greece did have a Wiccan something or other, accrding to the WSJ:
"The town of Greece used mostly Christian prayers because its citizens are predominantly Christian. Yet when rabbis and clerics of other faiths asked to give the prayer, they were welcome. Even a Wiccan priestess was allowed to issue what we suppose was an anti-prayer. Council members and visitors were under no obligation to pray along and there was no evidence of punishment or even disapproval for anyone who didn't."
Sure. It was essentially the rights-from-God-not-from-government/man argument that Locke used to disagree with the divine rights of kings to rule. Not controversial or necessarily easily misunderstood at all, that's just the way people spoke of and conceived of those things at the time.
"Well to be fair, Bag - the priest did say that a Satanist could conduct the ceremony..."
Everyday? Exclusively Satanist?
I don't think many of us have to see a real test of that theory to know the outcome.
Oh, well, seems as good a place as any to do this.
Lester Armistead, vocalist, banjo player and clown prince of the Tennessee Mafia Jug Band, was buried today.
Got to know him through his appearances at my hometown Watseka Theatre.
If you haven't heard the Tennessee Mafia Jug Band, then I will pray for you. Here's Lonesome, On'ry and Mean, written by Waylon Jennigs.
Say a prayer for Lester.
I'm seeing mentions of "Greece" and "Wiccan" and thinking, "Were't Greeks pagans anyway?" Oh, now I see your point.
Lydia, the difference there is that all were treated with respect at least nominally. That is not what is happening. Those using prayer are almost all being exclusive. I would have no problem with it if it was a shared right not based on majority power.
Well, if the forced prayers were open denominationally then that seems mitigating but it still sounds like a weird ruling to allow their attendance to be required.
I said it would be constitutional for a Satanist to give the prayer.
I don't appreciate the insinuation that I approved.
Still, even if it was shared by all religions, what is the need for this? What are the meetings for? They are to get business done between people of various backgrounds outside of their private religious beliefs. We don't expect the mayor to show up at church to sanctify the event in the name of the government.
Would you appreciate the insinuation that Christians might object to their attendance being required, in that case (i.e. a Satanic prayer)?
Because I do.
That seems to be the point here.
"His faith was his dynasty and that priority seemed to work for the betterment of human history."
Maybe. What it did was break the power of a corrupted faith that was anti-what Christ stood for (to put Luther's statements much more mildly). Which helped society and helped the Church. Then the reformed Church tamed the excesses in England in a way the French never got to doing.
There's a popular thesis that says it was the Methodist, crazy Evangelicals, who helped keep England away from the brink that ended monarchies in the rest of Europe.
Where there's cooperation between church and state, neither compulsion nor rejection, it seems society functions most smoothly.
"a Satanic prayer"
Is this realistic though? Is there really a societal trend towards this?
That's where hypotheticals don't make helpful law.
I could see a Wiccan prayer in San Fran or similar such places, but can't imagine a sincere (rather than ironic or intentionally offensive) satanic prayer. Since Wiccans are earth worshippers, that pretty much is the religion preached high and low by many on the Left.
There's a popular thesis...
I'm pretty sure I agree with that thesis. Can't remember the role of all the sects, but it was that back-and-forth that allowed for a dynamic to challenge a monarchy, even weaken it to the point of temporary abolition a century later, but not to the point that allowed dissidents the power to overthrow it entirely. The result was an English enlightenment that some say even made it more industrial earlier, as the Stuart kings were too busy fighting to award monopoly contracts - allowing free enterprise to reign in ways that it didn't on the continent. And it couldn't control the science academies, either.
Is this realistic though? Is there really a societal trend towards this?
But unfortunately, you see, that's not the problem the Constitution would be concerned with, at that point. Rights are rights. We're not allowed to deny them to Satanists.
They can let Obama say the prayer.
That would cover Satan.
Problem solved. Easy.
R&B:
If you have any courtesy, then please pay me the courtesy of not addressing any comments to me. I am not interested in conversing with you.
Is this realistic though? Is there really a societal trend towards this?
There's a societal trend towards offending and embarrassing people publicly, outrageously. It's not unthinkable to me that someone will protest the law by demanding equal time to promote satanism, or darwanism, etc. Everybody's going to get all het up again over prayers before council meetings, all of us will be distracted from a more dire reality, and Republicans will lose another election.
I see where this is going.
Phx:
LOL. I don't think anything requires "equal time." Did the ruling say that? I doubt it.
I predict that, if and when it somehow becomes necessary to allow a Satanist to give the prayer...
The public prayers will go away.
This is a public forum in which I've been allowed to comment. I meant no lack of courtesy in asking a tough question of a publicly stated opinion and your discomfort at hearing it posed does not prevent me from asking it for my own sake, or for the sake of others concerned with the proper interpretation of our rights and our Constitution in a coherent, intelligible and civilized way.
"Rights are rights. We're not allowed to deny them to Satanists."
That's my point. We're not denying them rights. It's used as a hypothetical and hypothetical denying of rights is not a present issue.
It's very much like the present marriage debate and people saying, well if gay people get married then someone should be able to marry anything once the definition gets skewed. But the key is that a sufficient number of men were wanting to marry men, so that the rights became examined in light of the actual denial of perceived rights.
Now, I might disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds, and may think the Constitution doesn't enter into at all, but if the folks in my community say that's a right, then that opens the probability I'll be exposed to a gay marriage in a civil or media setting.
I don't agree with it, but my religion is not the grounds of civil law (though my religion influences how I view ethics and how I vote). Now, if someone were to force me to marry a man, that's compulsion.
Since Wiccans are earth worshippers, that pretty much is the religion preached high and low by many on the Left.
Smile when you say "many". Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, humanism, neo-Platonism are pretty much the religions preached high and low by many on the Left.
LOL. I don't think anything requires "equal time." Did the ruling say that? I doubt it.
That's the operative principle of Greece town meetings that was the subject of the suit. I don't know whether that aspect was discussed in the ruling or not, but the town takes turns inviting a different flavors to perform the invocation.
"It's not unthinkable to me that someone will protest the law by demanding equal time to promote satanism"
Already happening.
Obamaism is the religion of the left. It is the same thing as Onanism. Only black.
"many"
I don't think the word "many" is restrictive. You can have many of this, and many of that, many of these, and many of those. A non-inconsequential percentage of graft-seeking politicians and the occasional true-believers.
R&B:
This will be my final comment to you.
I refuse to converse with you because of you. Don't flatter yourself that it's because you managed to ask a question that gave me discomfort.
An "ignore" button would be a lovely feature, perhaps someone knows how to do it.
"It is the same thing as Onanism"
That'll get you kicked out of a woodsy rehab church community, you know.
An "ignore" button would be a lovely feature, perhaps someone knows how to do it.
It's called will power.
Phx:
My mistake, I missed that detail. When I read the article about the case, I thought I understood part of the minority's argument to be that the prayers tended to be heavily Christian.
Phx:
Indeed; and I've generally ignored R&B for quite awhile. I thought it would be fair to make it plain.
When I read the article about the case, I thought I understood part of the minority's argument to be that the prayers tended to be heavily Christian.
Well you read an article so truthfully I'm sure you're more well-read on the case than I am. I just happened to be aware of that particular fact and I'm not sure how it played into the court's decision.
In any case, if I was an extreme opponent, which I'm not, my next step would be to challenge Christian hegemony over the Greece Town Hall. Add something a little spicier, more controversial - religiously speaking.
Why do you have a hard time with R&B?
Just ignore him if you do. He seems pretty learned though.
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
As the Supreme Poobah of the Church of the Poisoned Mind I would very much appreciate being allowed to direct the invocation for the Town Hall at your earliest convenience.
P.S. I hope you don't ban cameras and recording equipment from your town hall meetings.
Why do you have a hard time with R&B?
Just ignore him if you do. He seems pretty learned though.
Because he's an authoritarian who cares more about his own authority and the niceties required to not take responsibility for it than about the rights of free people.
Phx:
I'm not sure how to answer that without being unfair -- dredging up past incidents and all that.
But there are times when you decide that some people are a pure waste of your time to attempt conversation with.
Phx:
I guess I won't have to take any effort to explain my reasons after all.
He prefers to mock and disengage from a cloistered perch.
I guess I won't have to take any effort to explain my reasons after all.
You never do.
I'm not sure how to answer that without being unfair -- dredging up past incidents and all that.
Of course you're going off past "incidents". There's nothing unfair about discussing them, either. Unless you can't defend how you dealt with them or point out what someone else did wrong.
But there are times when you decide that some people are a pure waste of your time to attempt conversation with.
Oh, it's the "people" who are the waste. Not your approach. And never you.
I point out, for the record, that the rest of the conversation went quite well, and without any incident, despite being about a potentially contentious topic.
One person here is saying that things got too personal and/or inconsiderate, and that took place when this comment was made:
Would you appreciate the insinuation that Christians might object to their attendance being required, in that case (i.e. a Satanic prayer)?
Because I do.
That seems to be the point here.
I leave it to the rational, non-fear based reader to decide how that was out of line and an invitation to be deemed incapable of conversation.
Rhythm and Balls scolded:
He prefers to mock and disengage from a cloistered perch.
Considering that we know less about YOU than practically anyone else in this forum, I find that statement full of chizputz.
What do you need to know about me?
I don't claim that I'm authorized by a higher power to dispense forgiveness and hear your sins and all that. I don't wear an avatar that says as much.
I just care that a good point is made.
I've been wrong in my opinions. I change my mind. I understand that others may have points I didn't see.
But I don't claim to be better than anyone. Sure, I joke. But I take honesty and an honest attempt at discovering the truths of human existence quite seriously.
There's humor. There's shows. But what I'm saying is sincere.
@Ritmo: The insult was that you insinuated that he approved of satanism when he merely said that a satanist prayer might be allowed under our Constitution. And then you said that YOU would object to a satanist prayer while implying that Fr. Fox would not.
I know a lot about Ritmo actually.
He is a millionaire playboy who lives in Gotham City with his young ward who is in fact not a winsome lad but a underage Brazilian chica named Mariela.
This is another reason why I call you a "sullivanist," Ritmo: you seem sincere in your own religion (which, understandably is never espoused), but love taking potshots at regular catholicism, mainly because it adheres to traditions which you feel are outmoded.
Perhaps your main objection to modern life is PDR: Public display of religion.
The insult was that you insinuated that he approved of satanism when he merely said that a satanist prayer might be allowed under our Constitution. And then you said that YOU would object to a satanist prayer while implying that Fr. Fox would not.
This is as nonsensical an interpretation as I've come to expect. If you want the truth of what was said, you'll read. But you have a way of jumping to conclusions. But let's try anyway...
First off, he seems to be saying he needs to avoid me regardless. Before this was said. That's his business, but it's his responsibility, also. He can't prevent people from discussing what he sayd.
Second, no one said he "approved" of Satanism. That's a nonsensical conclusion that I challenge you to find. Or, you can just believe me yourself: I never said it and I never meant it. I'm not responsible for him misinterpreting it that way, either.
Third, you can't even follow the logic to realize that your concluding sentence is also just as false. I said that I'm concerned this ruling, which obviously allows for the FORCING of attending these prayers, denies Christians (or anyone else) their right to avoid them as surely as it does anyone trying to avoid the services in question at the SCOTUS.
You're denying an awful lot of reality and logic to not get that, but I can see that a number of people here already do. It's a bad ruling for everybody. The only people it benefits are those who like the abstract idea of government-promoted religion, without caring to follow the logic of how that just promotes sectarianism against all sorts of religious and non-religious people just as soon as the most odious (to them) expresser of the religion they DON'T LIKE takes advantage of the same rights that this ruling ALSO gave them. Just because you don't realize it also gave them the same rights, never bothered to think about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just did.
Trooper York said...
I know a lot about Ritmo actually.
He is a millionaire playboy who lives in Gotham City with his young ward who is in fact not a winsome lad but a underage Brazilian chica named Mariela.
You read his blog too before it disappeared?
The point is that the meeting belongs to everyone, not just Christian's. It's not the place for public prayers anymore than it makes sense to sing the Polish national anthem - NTTIAWWT.
Perhaps your main objection to modern life is PDR: Public display of religion.
I'm not even going to address this junk. Religion is fine. Authoritarianism is not (to me). No matter whose defense (or religion) it's used in. And I hate intellectual authoritarians. Free inquiry is what God gave us. Use it and never succumb to anyone attempting to shame you for it. Never.
I've generally ignored R&B for quite awhile. I thought it would be fair to make it plain.
And as if this wasn't a parade of shame and pride in shaming. It was a completely unecessary thing to say. And insanely passive-aggressive.
Listen, I didn't mean (before he insulted me) to shame or insult the person. I'd say I feel bad that I did, but I take it he would feel some sort of perverse joy in that. I only point out that the conversation didn't seem to have any problems until one simple point was made. And it wasn't as if I wasn't addressed before that by him. I was - when he said he resented an "insinuation" that I plainly didn't make.
If anyone else is offended by how this went (with him), then I apologize. For your sakes. Because I know a number of you care about honest discourse. But not for his. (Unless he apologizes for contributing to this kerfuffle - because I'm surely not above apologizing to anyone who can also apologize, themselves, when a wrong or even a misunderstanding occurs).
There's no reason why it had to come to this. It didn't. And I hope a good number of you with fair minds can see that fact.
You're denying an awful lot of reality and logic to not get that, but I can see that a number of people here already do. It's a bad ruling for everybody. The only people it benefits are those who like the abstract idea of government-promoted religion, without caring to follow the logic of how that just promotes sectarianism against all sorts of religious and non-religious people just as soon as the most odious (to them) expresser of the religion they DON'T LIKE takes advantage of the same rights that this ruling ALSO gave them. Just because you don't realize it also gave them the same rights, never bothered to think about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just did.
We are not and have never been a theocracy. If anything, we're trending towards an irreligious society bent on removing and discrediting religion more than ever, especially in public. On this I am in agreement with people like Troop.
Prayers before meetings have been going on for a long time and there is no reason to ban them.
What is it with you lefties getting all butt hurt every thread? You guys always end up saying something along the lines of "how dare you insult me". Really? You get distracted that easily? No wonder you have a tendency to vote for the guy who most fills your tender neediness with bullshit.
Prayers before meetings have been going on for a long time and there is no reason to ban them.
Except when they're required (as in this case), in which a huge block of people believe the constitution shouldn't (and doesn't) allow.
The constitution is not about Christians. Or "Judeo-Christians". I hate to break it to you. But you keep talking about us becoming "irreligious" as if you have a right to say which religion you want to replace it with. Then you say no particular religion, to which we can point out a number of particular/not-so-particular religions that the constitution recognizes just as many rights as Christianity in its place. One of them is Satanism. It's recognized and there it goes.
Or a number of other ones that you'd find offensive.
You keep dancing around the issue, though. It's about coerciveness and it's about government. No matter how horribly wrong our increasingly "irreligious" society has gotten, it's problematic to enforce abstract beliefs. You don't consider the downsides, you don't consider the devilish details you're forgetting and you simply don't even see how it applies in ways that will ONLY backfire.
Just speaking for myself if you continually insult me you're going to get it back.
What's with this "how dare you" pose? Who tf says that?
What is it about YOU - not "you righties," but you - that wants to get insulting with people. Is that a fucking sign of something to be proud of in your ideology?
I'm not "butthurt". I just think someone got away with using his position in society to claim an "offense" (and a right to run away from explaining it) that I could never get away with claiming and I felt it made sense to point out that I wasn't out to offend him. Or to take advantage of his position. I did it for the sake of explanation alone.
I think prayers are a good thing. We all need people to pray for us.
To talk about religion as it is going to take over the government like this this Spanish Armada or something is pretty ludicrous. The problem is that the government is going to intrude into peoples religions to stop them from following the dictates of their faith. They already did it to the Mormons when they outlawed plural marriage in a corrupt bargain to let Utah enter the union.
Now they want the Church to provide contraception and abortion services. Soon enough they will demand that they perform sacraments in violation of the teaching of the Church. It is coming a lot faster than a theocracy that will control your thoughts.
If the council members who want prayers want to be sensitive to those who don't, they could the schedule the opening prayer before the official start time, thus not "requiring" objecting members to sit through it.
The problem is that the government is going to intrude into peoples religions to stop them from following the dictates of their faith. They already did it to the Mormons when they outlawed plural marriage in a corrupt bargain to let Utah enter the union.
Well get in line. We're not allowed our full peyote ceremonial rights.
I am much more tolerant than youse guys. If the Satanists come up in the rotation then good Christian, Jews and Moslems could choose to leave until after the prayer. I would say the same about Scientologists and any other wacko's you want to come up with. This is America and they are entitled to believe what they want to believe. I don't begrudge them the chance to offer up a prayer to Chutulu or whoever they want to pray to. I don't have to participate. Just as you don't have to participate if Father Flanagan says a "Hail Mary" before the zoning commission convenes.
The problem is that the government is going to intrude into peoples religions to stop them from following the dictates of their faith.
OMG. Man, that's what it just did. Whose faith says they need to require the attendance of all the town council members at a prayer before opening the session? Whose? The constitution's open to religious observances and exemptions. So tell me, whose religion requires what the ruling allowed: A REQUIREMENT for town councilors to attend the prayers.
We know the answer is "no one's" but for some reason this will rescue our society from the evil forces of non-sectarianism. Who believes that? Does anyone?
Of course Chutulu is making a big comeback these days.
His handmaiden looks like she is going to be the next Democratic nominee.
If the Satanists come up in the rotation then good Christian, Jews and Moslems could choose to leave until after the prayer.
Yes. But that's the problem. The ruling was about requiring attendance. The Good Majority said yes, you could require attendance at the prayer.
Do you disagree? If so, then you're disagreeing with the ruling.
Soon enough they will demand that they perform sacraments in violation of the teaching of the Church. It is coming a lot faster than a theocracy that will control your thoughts.
Neither are high on my personal list of threats to liberty and human rights. YMMV but I think some of these are compromises we have to live with. Not every compromise or set back is a sign of facism or catastrophe.
Climate change, global warming I'm not so sure you'll survive.
Public life used to have a lot more religion in it, and less diversity. The world, and this nation was more segregated. People who were not in the majority tended to just keep their head down to stay in the good graces of the majority which could become a mob at a moment's notice, or at least ruin one's livelihood for not fitting in. It's not the same world anymore. I don't want a society where minorities have to accept being less than equal in the eyes of the government over such a worthless display. A prayer at a city council meeting is nothing more than a ritual of conformity to the majority's religious views - plain and simple. It accomplishes nothing else, and I believe the primary motivation for most is just that.
To put it simply: It's supremely rude.
I must admit that I did not realize that was in the ruling. Is that true?
If it is then you would have to stand there when the Satanists say their prayers. It won't kill you. You won't turn into a pillar of salt. I am confident that my religion is best and we will win on a level playing field.
So tee up the Satanists and the people who think Kim Kardasian is a God. If they meet the requirements then they deserve a chance to say a prayer.
Bagoh20:
Well, again, the practice of such prayers may have a lot of things against it, but does the Constitution prohibit it?
Do you think so? What part?
I don't have to live with a compromise where the state can tell me how to practice my religion.
I want to say that I feel the same about the Mormons or the Muslims or even the Comanche that you joked about when talking about peyote. If a Mormon or a Muslim wants to have more than one wife than that is ok with me. If a Scientologist wants to spend his time being lectured by a bunch of morons that is fine with me. I thought it was a travesty that the government decided to kill David Koresh and his followers even though he might have been a nut job. He was still entitled to his own religious views.
When the government pushes enough people to the wall then they will get a reaction that they will really, really not like very much.
No, NO, No! Why should anyone have to stand there putting up with ceremony that has nothing to do with government business. Should we have to wait for prayers at the DMV before we get our license? Maybe mandatory Chinese fire drills at every stoplight because you live in a town with a majority of Chinese. See, I get around. I know other cultures and their ways.
bagoh20 said...
What is it with you lefties getting all butt hurt every thread?
This post reeks of Leftism - a tendency to attribute negative group-wide characteristics to a diverse and charming tribe.
bagoh20 said...
Should we have to wait for prayers at the DMV before we get our license?
Pretty sure I have prayed at the DMV, for God to come down and smite my tormentors.
Father, The Constitution says no establishment. Having the government say a particular prayer, especially if attendance is mandatory seems like at least step one and two in establishing. I think establishing is the reason a lot of people want it. They want people to respect what they love more than they respect what is loved by others. The rest is dressing it up in tolerance that they are not really willing to live with.
The ruling was about requiring attendance. The Good Majority said yes, you could require attendance at the prayer.
Not so. In Kennedy's opinion:
"...the record here does not suggest that citizens are dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during the prayer, arriving late, or making a later protest. That the prayer in Greece is delivered during the opening ceremonial portion of the town’s meeting, not the policymaking portion, also suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and their institutions, not to exclude or coerce nonbelievers."
and
"In this case, as in Marsh, board members and constituents are “free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons.”
"Pretty sure I have prayed at the DMV, for God to come down and smite my tormentors."
From what I've seen at the DMV, God will smite them mightily for gluttony and sloth.
It sounds to me like Lydia has read the decision.
Me? I just shoot the hip.
Oh so Ritmo had it wrong.
I didn't think that could be true. I am sure that you didn't have to be there if you objected to the prayer.
But Lydia please do not confuse us with facts.
This is the internet after all. We are only concerned with arguing.
Bagoh20:
OK, well I'm only responding to the notion that this is an "establishment of religion."
That phrase in the First Amendment has not, in all this time, been understood as meaning "religion" in a generic sense, but in the sense of a specific religion. Several of the states, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, actually had established churches.
If a public prayer at a public meeting violates the establishment clause, then I think the result looks a lot like the sort of secularism in France, where religion is effectively banished from the public square.
So, for example, would this reading of the establishment clause prohibit a member of a legislature from offering a prayer during debate? When President Roosevelt offered a prayer for the Normandy invasion (I think it was), was that a violation? What about silent prayer?
Now, we've been down this road with prayer in schools. And I'm actually pretty much OK with no official prayer in government schools, because they are schools -- but I still don't see that as a violation of the establishment clause.
But it seems to me the implication of this case going the other way would be to treat all public meetings and events as if everyone in the country were children in school. That seems too far.
Christians who insist on this have to accept that it means you just don't respect lots of other religions like pagans, buddhists, etc. I understand that, and it's just fine, but that's why we can't allow this. The point of it is to say this religion is superior and in power in this place of government business. That is not American in my eyes.
What Lydia cited weren't facts. They were part of an opinion. The opinion of the majority. A 5 - 4 majority.
BagOH20 -- what I meant by my "only responding" was...
I'm not ignoring the merits of your objection to public prayer of this sort; just focusing on the constitutional question.
Several of the states, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, actually had established churches.
Which of course, didn't make them constitutional.
Wait a minute. What the majority opinion states is not a fact?
What is it? A muggle?
Help me out. I am not a lawyer. Thank God in all his apects.
I thought the majority opinion set out what the law is?
Help me out one of you scum sucking ambulance chasers.
If a public prayer at a public meeting violates the establishment clause, then I think the result looks a lot like the sort of secularism in France, where religion is effectively banished from the public square.
Oh dear. More confusion between public square and government.
The problem with authoritarians is they promote backlash. There's a reason France is one of the most secular countries in the world and it isn't because the Catholic Church lacked a sufficient means of promoting christianity there.
In law, facts guide; opinion decides
In science, theory guides; experiment decides
Wait a minute. What the majority opinion states is not a fact?
I dunno. Maybe Lydia's right. My understanding is that judges make findings of fact, and then their ruling is called an opinion. If there's no coercion then there's no case, and if that's the truth and not just what the majority felt, then it was mis-reported to me. Or maybe the litigants just saw it differently.
"When President Roosevelt offered a prayer for the Normandy invasion (I think it was), was that a violation? What about silent prayer?".
When men are going to their death, they should be given that opportunity, but the government does not have to pray for them. And how is a non Christian supposed to feel about dying for that government that doesn't hold his beliefs in equal esteem? That is a very special situation. Here we are talking of regular meetings of no religious significance to discuss traffic laws, potholes, zoning, and dog licenses.
Do we really want to force that on people year in and out so a General can say a prayer for just some of his men. Is that how God speaks to us?
There's a reason France is one of the most secular countries in the world and it isn't because the Catholic Church lacked a sufficient means of promoting christianity there.
IMO, it's because of what happened in public squares during the revolution.
Hey no harm no foul. I didn't read this nonsense either. I just like to bullshit on the internet.
IMO, it's because of what happened in public squares during the revolution.
If you know why that revolution happened, you should probably know that they hated the monarchy as much as they hated the church for being so unhealthily* intertwined with the king and his power and that's the reason it went away (or was severely restricted), too.
Beheaded! Laicite!
*I was going to use a different word here. Use your imagination here. It's France, after all.
As to the Constitutional question: I think you have to err on the side of not establishing. That is not difficult as long as it only applies to government business. Which is another reason to keep government business to a minimum. It is, by definition, always stepping on someone.
And how is a non Christian supposed to feel about dying for that government that doesn't hold his beliefs in equal esteem?
If non Christians want that level of respect then they'd better get busy writing down their motivating beliefs, their reason for doing things, etc.
Just sayin'
BagOH:
Do I want to "force" the President's prayer on anyone? How are Roosevelt's words of prayer any more an imposition than any other content he might have to a speech?
Anytime a public official gives a speech, is this "forced" on us? Or is it only if he includes a prayer, then that part is "forced"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm not seeing your point there.
Schoolchildren are required to attend school. There seems to be some dispute whether people were "forced" to attend the prayer part of the meetings at issue. I'm very dubious about that, but there's no point in arguing over it; it was either compulsory or it wasn't.
But back to a point Scalia made (not in this case that I know of): not all bad policies are unconstitutional.
"non Christian" should be expanded to mean "atheist."
Was Hitchens any help there before his premature death?
I'm working on a Hitchens voice -- it's not ready yet for chirbit.
Heavenly Father, we humbly beseech thee to bless this work of fixing potholes, issuing traffic citations, deciding pet registration, and other godly work.
Come on! This is how important things die. Or maybe it's just an admission of dwindling. We want in on those things, too!
Prayer at government functions may have a long history, but so do a lot of things we now find inappropriate. It was a bad idea all along, only made possible by being prefered by an overwhelming majority, but that is the root of a lot of bad treatment and feelings between neighbors throughout history, and it was never necessary. Why must we have it today?
What Lydia cited weren't facts. They were part of an opinion. The opinion of the majority. A 5 - 4 majority.
Kagan wrote the main dissenting opinion and she makes no mention of attendance during the prayer being mandatory. I think we must assume that Kennedy is stating facts.
If those are facts and the litigants were wrong and it wasn't compulsory Lydia then it's not compulsory and they had no case and the decision was rendered justly. In which case I really would like to hear what the hell the dissent was about.
Lydia said:
Kagan wrote the main dissenting opinion and she makes no mention of attendance during the prayer being mandatory.
That would have been a very useful element for her argument.
The dissent was about keeping religious people on the defensive and the drive to drive religion out of America.
That is where Satan comes in if you know what I mean.
If I was President and men were going to war in my name, I would try to acknowledge the spiritual concerns of as many as possible. I think that is quite doable without discounting many of them. It just takes a little sensitivity and thought. Men risking their lives for us deserve at least that - all of them do. President Roosevelt's prayer was less than adequate in my view, but today it would be much more so. A constitutional violation? No, because it was not policy. It was a man speaking at a difficult time. He just should have done better in my opinion, but that's not a crime.
If those are facts and the litigants were wrong and it wasn't compulsory Lydia then it's not compulsory and they had no case and the decision was rendered justly. In which case I really would like to hear what the hell the dissent was about.
More from the ruling, in the Syllabus section:
"JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO, concluded in Part II–B that a fact-sensitive inquiry that considers both the setting in which the prayer arises and the audience to whom it is directed shows that the town is not coercing its citizens to engage in a religious observance. The prayer opportunity is evaluated against the backdrop of a historical practice showing that prayer has become part of the Nation’s heritage and tradition. It is presumed that the reasonable observer is acquainted with this tradition and understands that its purposes are to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens. Furthermore, the principal audience for these invocations is not the public, but the lawmakers themselves. And those lawmakers did not direct the public to participate, single out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicate that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity. Respondents claim that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected, but offense does not equate to coercion."
Respondents claim that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected -- that feeling of exclusion and offense taken was, I think, the litigants' main beef and also what Kagan based her dissent on.
I asked: "Why must we have it today (prayer at these functions)?"
In the past, asking that was dangerous, and that's probably why it lasted so long. Now we can ask, and I think people need to answer that if they want it part of the law.
I know the religious see their control slipping, and that is scary, but it is YOUR religion, and you can preserve it in your personal life. Does real Christianity demand more than that?
I agree w/Bag. People asking the gov't for help declaring the power of their religion are in fear of its decline. A few here have already stated as much. God help them with their quest. But I don't the gov't will save it and I don't think it's the one causing its decline.
"May God help you in your quest to have the government save your religion."
Why must we have it today (prayer at these functions)?
I think that statement in the ruling about the prayer's "purposes are to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens" still holds in our society today. A sense of "gravity" still comes from a belief in God for most. Perhaps as we become more and more secular, something else can step in to provide that gravity. Perhaps.
"I agree w/Bag"
Oh shit! Now I have rethink it all.
I want religion preserved. I think it's the most valuable institution ever devised, especially Christianity. I just don't think government has any role in that. It can only diminish it, and this practice of mixing them does just that.
From Alito's concurring opinion:
"I turn now to the narrow aspect of the principal dissent, and what we find here is that the principal [Kagan] dissent’s objection, in the end, is really quite niggling, you bitch."
So, I added that last phrase, but I'm pretty sure it matches the tone. Fortunately he wasn't referencing Thomas.
" A sense of "gravity" still comes from a belief in God for most. Perhaps as we become more and more secular, something else can step in to provide that gravity."
I think government is so far below spirituality that it's like praying before using the restroom. These expressions of religion don't raise government, except to sanction what deserves none. It does however make religion less spiritual, IMHO.
200 comments and nobody called anyone a racist yet? Somebody is dropping the ball.
Post a Comment