Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Othelos]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/opinion-analysis-prayers-get-a-new-blessing/#more-209580

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... nt-clause/


So in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Town would open its city council meetings with a prayer and naturally Galloway challenged the practice. It was a nonsectarian prayer but generally Christian. Also important to note the practice of opening council meetings with a prayer only started in 1999. The court ruled such prayers are constitutional because no one was being coerced to join a religion. What might make a government fail the coercion test ? That was split 3 justices in the opinion written by Justice Kennedy said said the coercion test would be satisfied if dissidents were punished or criticized for not joining in the prayer. 2 Justices in a concurrence written by Thomas said the coercion test would be satisfied if dissenters were forced to join a religion.

I think this is the right decision, maybe a tad more expansive then I would have liked. Law students rejoice you might not have to learn the endorsement test now.


So NSG what do you say is this good tolerance of religion or is this an impermissible violations of the establishment clause?

Good tolerance of religion. I don't care if its Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jainist, or Jewish. Those who want to pray in a public place should be allowed to do so.

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

[Geilinor]

Good tolerance of religion. I don't care if its Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jainist, or Jewish. Those who want to pray in a public place should be allowed to do so.

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

A legislature paying a chaplain with tax dollars isn't sponsorship?

[Vazdania]

Good tolerance of religion. I don't care if its Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jainist, or Jewish. Those who want to pray in a public place should be allowed to do so.

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

The state isn't sponsoring any religion, so there is no problem.

[Geilinor]

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

The state isn't sponsoring any religion, so there is no problem.

Religious clergy are being paid by the government to offer prayers.

[Othelos]

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

A legislature paying a chaplain with tax dollars isn't sponsorship?

Never said it wasn't.

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

The state isn't sponsoring any religion, so there is no problem.

Considering that prayers would be part of the meeting, religion is being sponsored.

[Vazdania]

A legislature paying a chaplain with tax dollars isn't sponsorship?

Never said it wasn't.

The state isn't sponsoring any religion, so there is no problem.

Considering that prayers would be part of the meeting, religion is being sponsored.

Not at all, traditionally speaking prayer is done before or after a meeting is called to order or concluded.

[Othelos]

Never said it wasn't.



Considering that prayers would be part of the meeting, religion is being sponsored.

Not at all, traditionally speaking prayer is done before or after a meeting is called to order or concluded.

That doesn't change the fact that the government is leaving space in the town meeting for religion.

[Vazdania]

Not at all, traditionally speaking prayer is done before or after a meeting is called to order or concluded.

That doesn't change the fact that the government is leaving space in the town meeting for religion.

Its done before or after official business is done. It therefore is not affecting state matters. The state is allowing those with faith to freely practice there religion with establishing an official religion. There is no problem here.

[Othelos]

That doesn't change the fact that the government is leaving space in the town meeting for religion.

Its done before or after official business is done.

Still part of the government meeting.

[Death Metal]

Never said it wasn't.



Considering that prayers would be part of the meeting, religion is being sponsored.

Not at all, traditionally speaking prayer is done before or after a meeting is called to order or concluded.

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Why does there need to be a group prayer before the town meetings? Couldn't everybody just pray privately in their cars or at home or in the hallway or something for a few minutes before the meeting started?

[Draica]

Why are we getting upset? Some millitant atheist organizations are already trying to push prayer out of schools and shun religious students, some towns have tried to keep prayer out of town meetings and now the highest court in the land uphelds it so it's outrage? This is nonsense. They didn't say you have to pray, didn't say you have to go to a town meeting, it simply said it doesn't violate seperation of Church and State. Period.

[Death Metal]

Why are we getting upset? Some millitant atheist organizations are already trying to push prayer out of schools and shun religious students, some towns have tried to keep prayer out of town meetings and now the highest court in the land uphelds it so it's outrage? This is nonsense. They didn't say you have to pray, didn't say you have to go to a town meeting, it simply said it doesn't violate seperation of Church and State. Period.

I am neither militant, nor athiest, nor an organization, and I see this as an atrocity against the First Amendment as it endorses religious practice.

Check your strawmen at the door please.

[Cetacea]

Why are we getting upset? Some millitant atheist organizations are already trying to push prayer out of schools and shun religious students, some towns have tried to keep prayer out of town meetings and now the highest court in the land uphelds it so it's outrage? This is nonsense. They didn't say you have to pray, didn't say you have to go to a town meeting, it simply said it doesn't violate seperation of Church and State. Period.

I am neither militant, nor athiest, nor an organization, and I see this as an atrocity against the First Amendment as it endorses religious practice.

Check your strawmen at the door please.

good idea, check your atrocities too

everyone has the choice not to participate...

[Blasted Craigs]

I am neither militant, nor athiest, nor an organization, and I see this as an atrocity against the First Amendment as it endorses religious practice.

Check your strawmen at the door please.

good idea, check your atrocities too

everyone has the choice not to participate...

The problem resides in the fact that not participating can be akin to political suicide...
Say I go to offer a bid on a contract.
So does my competitor.
He prays like a good little Christian during the official government prayer before the meeting.
I politely refuse. (For any number of reasons, or no reason at all.)
If I have the better bid, I should get the contract, right?
Well, now there is a bias, as the members of the council think "He must hate God and is probably a Godless abomination".
Of my competitor they think, "He is a good Christian soul."
Even though I have the better bid, who do you think will get the contract?

So technically, yes, I can refuse.
But realistically, I better fake it to not turn the politicians against me.
Not to mention tax dollars being spent to pay a clergy man to pray.

The same people who say I should not complain my tax dollars are spent on religious activities I may not agree with, that I am unreasonable to say I do not want the taxes I pay in used this way....

Are usually the same damn people that get purple in the face when they see a person on food stamps buy name brand foods, because they should have a say in how their taxes are used.

Double standard much?

[JeebusCrust]

I am neither militant, nor athiest, nor an organization, and I see this as an atrocity against the First Amendment as it endorses religious practice.

Check your strawmen at the door please.

good idea, check your atrocities too

everyone has the choice not to participate...

Endorsement is the issue. Nobody is claiming it's forced.

[Risottia]

I agree. It only becomes a problem when it's sponsored by the state.

A legislature paying a chaplain with tax dollars isn't sponsorship?

Yes.
Also, the military paying chaplains with taxpayers' money is governmental sponsorship of religions, just saying.

[Risottia]

Some millitant

Millitant = using millilitres of alcohol?

atheist organizations are already trying to push prayer out of schools

Good. A school isn't place for organised religious practice. That's churches/mosques/temples/whatever, or premises open to the public - provided a permission has been granted by the competent authority.

and shun religious students,

Uh-uh.
I don't see why an atheist organisation should try and coax religious students into its ranks instead of letting them on their own, but if that's what you would prefer...

[Ifreann]

Sounds like some bullshit to me.

I love the double standard I see here all the time. So basically it is more than fine for non christians to protest all kinds of christian things but let a christian protest anything or stand up for their beliefs about anything and everyone is butthurt about it.

Tell us more about how uncomfortable that cross you nailed yourself to is, please.

Now me, I am my own Person and my own Christian I do not go for alot of the very stereotypical views christians get foisted with on this site such as the whole anti gay thing or the abortion thing etc but I do think that people who have those beliefs have just as much right to express them and stand for them as you all do to express your beliefs and opinions.

And when you find someone opposing their right to express those beliefs, let us know.

In this case, I wonder how many of the people who attend these meetings are christian or just agnostic and just plain don't care if there is a prayer or not and that being the case why on earth is it anyone elses business? especially if they don't live in that town or community? how is it their business?

What does it matter? Do you not respect our right to express our opinions on this issue?

[JeebusCrust]

I love the double standard I see here all the time. So basically it is more than fine for non christians to protest all kinds of christian things but let a christian protest anything or stand up for their beliefs about anything and everyone is butthurt about it.

Who said that, exactly?

[Dyakovo]

Why would an atheist pray? That's the problem with this. Atheism is a stance on God and religion and should be treated as such. Atheism receive the same protections as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism.

If your religion (or lack thereof) does not allow you to pray or renders prayer meaningless, there is no reason that the right to pray of other individuals (whose religion does allow/encourage them to pray) should be infringed upon.

No, the council invites clergy to pray they have not done so for these groups; even ignoring fact that atheists wouldn't really pray. Plus I dont think council would do much if they invited every religion to pray: which is only way this will truly be not endorsing any religious stance.

A Wiccan priestess volunteered to pray and was allowed to. And I don't thing the council was allowing members of every religion to pray before each meeting, just one prayer per meeting (i.e. a Christian prays before one meeting, a Muslim prays before the next, etc.).

Banning prayer as a part of government meetings would not in any way infringe upon anyone's right to pray.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hey, look at what's already happening.

Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

[Death Metal]

I am neither militant, nor athiest, nor an organization, and I see this as an atrocity against the First Amendment as it endorses religious practice.

Check your strawmen at the door please.

good idea, check your atrocities too

everyone has the choice not to participate...

What atrocity am I committing by saying "why not just have a moment of silent meditation instead, that way people can pray or not pray the way they want to without an endorsement of religious practice?"

When you have a prayer out loud, that is when you endorse religious practice. That is the problem.

Don't act like we're telling you not to pray... we're not. During the silent meditation you can pray however the fuck you want. And if you don't want to pray you don't have to either, you can go over your shopping list or whatever. Your right to religious worship ends at my right not to fucking hear it.

[Pope Joan]

Even if the guy saying his predictable prayer is not overtly trying to convert me, he is still subjecting me against my will to his values, symbols, presumptions, and judgments.

I would like to favor them with a verse from Joshua. It comes right before one we hear much more often. "You cannot serve the LORD your God."

Let 'em chew on that. It's Biblical, and clearly will not convert anyone.

[Othelos]

Hey, look at what's already happening.

Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
Commenting on Monday, Bedrosian said he envisions a setup by which the supervisors would approve, individually, people from their districts to offer the opening prayer. That system would hold supervisors accountable to their districts, he added.
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

Oh, of course it's freedom of religion, except when everyone's represented. Then it's just impractical.