Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Caninope]

That's not really the case, especially given life terms. In fact, given the state of the Senate Judiciary, it's impossible to get a "partisan hack" on the court- judges, these days, often lack extremely controversial decisions and are often evasive in Judiciary proceedings.

That's also presuming that ideologically motivated jurists cannot be good jurists, which is definitely not the case.

They're certainly a lot better at failing to openly-state their positions after Bork, yes. They have no such restrictions once they're confirmed.

Which is a good thing.

Sebelius was the only exception I can think of off the top of my head.

There's already been an exception this session.

The composition of the court is a problem too. It's the most conservative court since the 1930's:

Not particularly; it has changed much since the 1990s, with a fairly stable ideology since about then.

[The Serbian Empire]

how is a town prayer session any different from a prayer session before the start of a game in high school?

OR any different than the US Congressional Prayer, or State legislature prayer ?

My guess is the age of the people involved. Adults are assumed to be more mature and less subject to coercion than children.

I think one might want to try with a Democrat-majority court and take out the biggest one... Congressional Prayer.

[MERIZoC]

OR any different than the US Congressional Prayer, or State legislature prayer ?

My guess is the age of the people involved. Adults are assumed to be more mature and less subject to coercion than children.

I think one might want to try with a Democrat-majority court and take out the biggest one... Congressional Prayer.

Dems wouldn't get rid of Congressional prayers.

[Greed and Death]

That's not really the case, especially given life terms. In fact, given the state of the Senate Judiciary, it's impossible to get a "partisan hack" on the court- judges, these days, often lack extremely controversial decisions and are often evasive in Judiciary proceedings.

That's also presuming that ideologically motivated jurists cannot be good jurists, which is definitely not the case.

They're certainly a lot better at failing to openly-state their positions after Bork, yes. They have no such restrictions once they're confirmed.

The Roberts court has decided more cases by 5-4 than any other, about 22%. That's only a point or two higher than the Rehnquist court, but they've most likely got quite a bit more time before Roberts is replaced to widen the gap. Two-thirds of those are split along purely ideological lines; Sebelius was the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. That one was likely because Roberts is smart enough to realize, as he himself said, SCOTUS is in danger of "los[ing] its credibility and legitimacy as an institution".

The composition of the court is a problem too. It's the most conservative court since the 1930's: 4 of the 5 most conservative justices in history are serving now and only 1 of the top 10 most liberal is. Of course, it could be the opposite and we'd still be having the same problem. The whole idea behind life appointments was to protect justices from being influenced by partisan politics. Now, it's just protecting them from the consequences of that.

I actually got to listen to Justice Scalia speak on this matter. It is not that the justices are politically partisan, the justices each follow their own constitutional philosophy. Why it seems partisan is partisan political processes pick justices based on their philosophy. And the instance you mention Robert where he sided with the "left side of the court" in Sebelius, it had nothing to do with him wanting to preserve the court, the voting rights act case would have been better to preserve the court. Instead, the decision had to do with his view on deference to the legislative and executive branches of government. And that to a large degree is why he was picked, Bush was trying to pick a justice who would give him as much power as possible.

[Azinar]

This is a really tough issue, because in either case someone believes that their freedom of religion is being transgressed.

But I kind of have to disagree with the court here, whether or not those praying are "coercing" someone to believe a particular faith, the fact that they open meetings with a prayer does come across as kind of preach-y because whether or not those who do not wish to pray are "ordered to" they do have to sit through and listen to it.

I think a more reasonable solution might be to hold the prayers outside the meeting place proper or maybe 10-15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting so that those who want to pray can arrive early and pray, and that those who don't want to be involved in prayer don't have to be.

[Xsyne]

Sweet. Gonna run for office so i can open all legislative sessions with Slayer's "Disciple".

[Geilinor]

So are they going to overturn the decision banning schools from leading students in school prayer or something? Nobody is going to coerced into joining a religion, so I don't understand how this didn't just overturn 40 years of judicial precedent.

[Death Metal]

Sweet. Gonna run for office so i can open all legislative sessions with Slayer's "Disciple".

I'd prefer Amon Amarth's "Pursuit of Vikings" but, hell, I'll take it.

[Greed and Death]

So are they going to overturn the decision banning schools from leading students in school prayer or something? Nobody is going to coerced into joining a religion, so I don't understand how this didn't just overturn 40 years of judicial precedent.

Minors and different from adults, so what may be coercive to a minor may not be coercive to an adult.
Minors are forced to attend school no one is forced to attend a city council meeting.
Lastly Precedent supporting legislative prayers goes back pretty far too.

[Geilinor]

So are they going to overturn the decision banning schools from leading students in school prayer or something? Nobody is going to coerced into joining a religion, so I don't understand how this didn't just overturn 40 years of judicial precedent.

Minors and different from adults, so what may be coercive to a minor may not be coercive to an adult.
Minors are forced to attend school no one is forced to attend a city council meeting.
Lastly Precedent supporting legislative prayers goes back pretty far too.

Those who are elected and may not be religious still have to sit through it.

[Greed and Death]

Minors and different from adults, so what may be coercive to a minor may not be coercive to an adult.
Minors are forced to attend school no one is forced to attend a city council meeting.
Lastly Precedent supporting legislative prayers goes back pretty far too.

Those who are elected and may not be religious still have to sit through it.

So there is a law requiring you to be elected ?

[Geilinor]

Those who are elected and may not be religious still have to sit through it.

So there is a law requiring you to be elected ?

No, but there is a town law requiring a prayer to be said at the meetings. Prayers are a sponsorship of religion.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm strongly opposed to this ruling.
I would be in favor of the 2 minute or minute silence if they like, and would have absolutely no objection to clergy (on their own volition) handing out prayer cards at the meeting to those who wanted them prior to the silence. (They would be, in effect, private citizens handing out messages.)

A 2 minute silence can be utilized to pray to any god, or indeed, none at all.
Atheists can utilize the silence to contemplate quietly on existence and such.

[Death Metal]

So there is a law requiring you to be elected ?

No, but there is a town law requiring a prayer to be said at the meetings. Prayers are a sponsorship of religion.

Really, if they just made it "silent meditation" like they do in schools, there wouldn't even be a problem.

[Greed and Death]

So there is a law requiring you to be elected ?

No, but there is a town law requiring a prayer to be said at the meetings. Prayers are a sponsorship of religion.

So since you are not required to serve as an elected official, you are not required to sit through meetings opened with a prayer ?

[Great Nepal]

I'm strongly opposed to this ruling.
I would be in favor of the 2 minute or minute silence if they like, and would have absolutely no objection to clergy (on their own volition) handing out prayer cards at the meeting to those who wanted them prior to the silence. (They would be, in effect, private citizens handing out messages.)

A 2 minute silence can be utilized to pray to any god, or indeed, none at all.
Atheists can utilize the silence to contemplate quietly on existence and such.

...I would much favor if they actually started to do work instead of spending time on prayer/silence but I will take the silence thing over this.

[Bezombia]

No, but there is a town law requiring a prayer to be said at the meetings. Prayers are a sponsorship of religion.

So since you are not required to serve as an elected official, you are not required to sit through meetings opened with a prayer ?

Required to has absolutely jack shit to do about it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm strongly opposed to this ruling.
I would be in favor of the 2 minute or minute silence if they like, and would have absolutely no objection to clergy (on their own volition) handing out prayer cards at the meeting to those who wanted them prior to the silence. (They would be, in effect, private citizens handing out messages.)

A 2 minute silence can be utilized to pray to any god, or indeed, none at all.
Atheists can utilize the silence to contemplate quietly on existence and such.

...I would much favor if they actually started to do work instead of spending time on prayer/silence but I will take the silence thing over this.

In my experience, a moment of silence before a meeting tends to quickly defuse tensions and forces people to remain calm and collected for a while, as well as more thoughtful.
I realize that is anecdotal, but if you think on it, you'll probably agree. (it works even better with a ticking clock.)

[Death Metal]

No, but there is a town law requiring a prayer to be said at the meetings. Prayers are a sponsorship of religion.

So since you are not required to serve as an elected official, you are not required to sit through meetings opened with a prayer ?

That's not even the point of the objection. People are objecting because it's an endorsement of religion.

And let's be honest; if this was Dearborn and it was Muslim prayer, the five that upheld this law would strike it down faster than you can blink.

[Great Nepal]

...I would much favor if they actually started to do work instead of spending time on prayer/silence but I will take the silence thing over this.

In my experience, a moment of silence before a meeting tends to quickly defuse tensions and forces people to remain calm and collected for a while, as well as more thoughtful.
I realize that is anecdotal, but if you think on it, you'll probably agree.

I dont know about US but I think from news a five star hotel and midnight before decision is needed trends to do that job better.
Bit more seriously though, I dont think it is the enforced minute of silence before meetings is way to go around to achieve that aim since well there aren't that many tensions before debate has begun. Plus even if it does, it wont last too long when debates start to get heated and people start to shout. Some form of decibel limit and breaks in middle of debates would probably ensure more calm debate.

[Greed and Death]

So since you are not required to serve as an elected official, you are not required to sit through meetings opened with a prayer ?

Required to has absolutely jack shit to do about it.

You better read up the quote chain a little more.

[Ostroeuropa]

The ritualistic importance of the shared activity prior to a meeting, and the group bonding this represents, may well be why the prayer-before-we-meet shit took off.
At some point, people became openly comfortable with saying they object to the words being uttered and refuse to say them.
At that point, by sticking to their guns and keeping the words and ritual the same, the religious are actively undermining the entire point of the excercise.

The prayer is no longer a uniting experience meant to bridge our differences.
It's a divisive one. It will polarize the debate and make the sessions more heated, even without us realizing it, due to basic group psychology.
(I must be clear here. Both Atheists and Religious persons will be effected in this way. The persons they notice on the opposite side of the gap not participating in the ritual, or rather participating in a different one, will be perceived as "Other.")
This might not be the case if both parties had similar religious devotion, but we know that's simply untrue. One of them takes it far more seriously at greater a frequency.

While public prayer has an admirable tradition for the reason I outlined, it is simply no longer fit for purpose now that there is a sizable minority who find the whole prayer thing to be gibberish.

It's for that reason I support the one or two minute silence.
Functionally, it fulfills all that a religious utterance does, and I seriously doubt any religious people think that god can't hear you unless you physically speak.
In addition, in outward appearance, it nets us the benefit of a shared group ritual despite the fact we are all doing different individual things tailored to us.

Most serious atheists will acknowledge that there is a good reason that religious rituals and such have such popularity and memetic abundance. (They are good at reproducing themselves, because people like rituals OR because people who like rituals are good at reproducing.)

We're creatures influenced by psychology. We know a little about psychology now. We should be using that to foster kinship and wellbeing.

[MERIZoC]

Required to has absolutely jack shit to do about it.

You better read up the quote chain a little more.

You said that since people aren't required to attend the meetings, then it isn't coercion. Bezombia was refuting that.

So are they going to overturn the decision banning schools from leading students in school prayer or something? Nobody is going to coerced into joining a religion, so I don't understand how this didn't just overturn 40 years of judicial precedent.

Minors and different from adults, so what may be coercive to a minor may not be coercive to an adult.
Minors are forced to attend school no one is forced to attend a city council meeting.
Lastly Precedent supporting legislative prayers goes back pretty far too.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

Religion itself is coercion. I can't think of a single time I heard a parent ask their child for permission before forcibly brainwashing them and psychologically abusing them. The Supreme Court has proven it is staffed by authoritarian terrorists.

[MERIZoC]

Religion itself is coercion. I can't think of a single time I heard a parent ask their child for permission before forcibly brainwashing them and psychologically abusing them. The Supreme Court has proven it is staffed by authoritarian terrorists.

This is…..a bit extreme.