Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Great Nepal]

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.

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.

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.).

So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is more than an acknowledgment that religion exists. This is government saying that a town meeting cannot start without a prayer.

Alright, I'll concede that forcing meetings to start with prayers is taking things a little too far, but if the majority of people in the town want to hold prayers at their meetings, they should be allowed to.

That's the secular position yes.

[The North Polish Union]

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.

Atheism doesn't "not allow" us to pray.

Hence why I said "[...] does not allow you to pray or renders prayer meaningless" Read my whole post and don't just cherry-pick minor points to argue, especially when they're followed by another phrase that is more relevant to atheism.

That makes no sense. And no, their right shouldn't be infringed upon. They are free to pray at almost any other time.

If it doesn't make sense, please explain how you're confused. Otherwise I have no way of explaining it better.

[Othelos]

Being part of a majority doesn't give the right to ignore rights.

What rights? People don't have the right not to be offended. Freedom of speech exists, and religious people can't be silenced just because people might get offended by religious expression.

It's not about offense, it's about respecting the fact that 20% of the American population isn't part of a religion and may not want to participate in a prayer sponsored by the town.

It's still a part of the meeting.

And the problem with that is?

The fact that the prayer is taking place as an integral part of the meeting is an issue, because at that point, it's pretty much government sponsored.

Which violates the establishment clause.

[Viritica]

Good I am glad to hear it

Here we go...

[The North Polish Union]

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.

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.

No its not. In no way is the ruling that city councils have the right to invite or accept individuals to pray an "endorsement of religious prayer."

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.).

So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.

Not everyone who has prayed has been invited, although there's no reason those of other faiths couldn't be. And volunteers are accepted. I don't see what relevance this has.

[Kelinfort]

Prayer and government=not good. Then again, the majority of the townspeople want to do this...

[Geilinor]

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.

No its not. In no way is the ruling that city councils have the right to invite or accept individuals to pray an "endorsement of religious prayer."

That's what the ruling was.

[The North Polish Union]

No its not. In no way is the ruling that city councils have the right to invite or accept individuals to pray an "endorsement of religious prayer."

That's what the ruling was.

Cite the part of the ruling where the town is required to pray before council meetings. I have the PDF of the decision open on my computer, so a page number is fine.

[Death Metal]

Prayer and government=not good. Then again, the majority of the townspeople want to do this...

Constitutional democracy is not just about majority rule, so, that's irrelevant.

[Kelinfort]

Prayer and government=not good. Then again, the majority of the townspeople want to do this...

Constitutional democracy is not just about majority rule, so, that's irrelevant.

Yeah, you're right. They just could, you know, not have prayer?

[Greed and Death]

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.

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.

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.).

So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

[The North Polish Union]

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.


So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

For clarification, "[p]rayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves [a] legitimate function" (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14) is not coercive and is constitutional.

However, "[i]f the practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court." (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14-15) That is, it would violate the Establishment Clause.

[Greed and Death]

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

For clarification, "[p]rayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves [a] legitimate function" (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14) is not coercive and is constitutional.

However, "[i]f the practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court." (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14-15) That is, it would violate the Establishment Clause.

Yep, I am getting too drunk to pin cite.

[Geilinor]

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.


So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

You don't think having a legislative session start with a prayer is an endorsement of religion?

[Geilinor]

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

For clarification, "[p]rayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves [a] legitimate function" (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14) is not coercive and is constitutional.

However, "[i]f the practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court." (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14-15) That is, it would violate the Establishment Clause.

There's an endorsement even if the invocation relates to common goals.

[Brilliant Equestria]

You have got the infringement the wrong way round. This prayer is clear act of government endorsement of religious prayer to determent of all stances which do not pray.


So does every Christian priest volunteer or are they invited, because from the article it seems quite clear to be the latter:

You keep saying endorsement, the ruling at least in this fact pattern makes clear the correct test is the Coercion test.

Problem: it's only the coercion test because that's what they just decided it is, in violation of precedent. Thomas and Scalia went even further and suggested "coercion" would only be invoked if the government was actively forcing people to declare for one religion; they can discourage people who won't join-in all they like as long as they aren't doing swordpoint conversions.

The problem with judges re-interpreting the Constitution (especially those who claim to be "originalists") is that it always tends to turn out that the Constitution conveniently said exactly what they wanted it to the entire time and we just weren't reading it right.

[Geilinor]

The problem with judges re-interpreting the Constitution (especially those who claim to be "originalists") is that it always tends to turn out that the Constitution conveniently said exactly what they wanted it to the entire time and we just weren't reading it right.

That's the entire argument of the originalists. "We have been interpreting the Constitution incorrectly since that Federalist John Jay was chief justice."

[Brilliant Equestria]

The problem with judges re-interpreting the Constitution (especially those who claim to be "originalists") is that it always tends to turn out that the Constitution conveniently said exactly what they wanted it to the entire time and we just weren't reading it right.

That's the entire argument of the originalists. "We have been interpreting the Constitution incorrectly since that Federalist John Jay was chief justice."

I was referring specifically to people like Scalia, who claim to be originalists but are really just using it as an excuse to lend constitutional credibility to their own decisions. Unless you're seriously going to argue DC v. Heller and Bush v. Gore were totally consistent with the original interpretation of the Constitution during the time of the founders? Or, even worse, Lochner?

I would personally argue that penumbra and the Ninth Amendment invalidate the entire idea of originalism, but I can at least respect people like Bork who are consistent in their application of it.

[Geilinor]

That's the entire argument of the originalists. "We have been interpreting the Constitution incorrectly since that Federalist John Jay was chief justice."

Unless you're seriously going to argue DC v. Heller and Bush v. Gore were totally consistent with the original interpretation of the Constitution during the time of the founders? Or, even worse, Lochner?

I wasn't arguing anything.

[The North Polish Union]

For clarification, "[p]rayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves [a] legitimate function" (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14) is not coercive and is constitutional.

However, "[i]f the practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court." (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14-15) That is, it would violate the Establishment Clause.

There's an endorsement even if the invocation relates to common goals.

The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit an endorsement of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from interfering with individual religious beliefs. The government cannot enact laws aiding any religion or establishing an official state religion.

[Geilinor]

There's an endorsement even if the invocation relates to common goals.

The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit an endorsement of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from interfering with individual religious beliefs. The government cannot enact laws aiding any religion or establishing an official state religion.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/establishment-clause/

The Clause is also invoked to prevent government from endorsing a religion, from helping or hurting a particular religion, or from becoming excessively entangled with religion.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion.

The Court has gone against some precedent in this situation.

[The North Polish Union]

The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit an endorsement of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from interfering with individual religious beliefs. The government cannot enact laws aiding any religion or establishing an official state religion.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/establishment-clause/

The Clause is also invoked to prevent government from endorsing a religion, from helping or hurting a particular religion, or from becoming excessively entangled with religion.

The prayers that the city council has allowed have been remarkably ecumenical (for lack of a better word) in that representatives of many faiths (ranging from Christians and Jews to Baha'is and to Wiccans). This isn't really an endorsement of a religion. Also, remember that "[p]rayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves [a] legitimate function" (opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, pg. 14)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion.

The Court has gone against some precedent in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Chambers

SCOTUS said that it is constitutional to open legislative sessions with prayer, and that it is legal for the state to hire a chaplain to lead the prayer (although the second part has less relevance to today's decision).

[Vazdania]

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.

[Geilinor]

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.

If they want to pray, they can do it privately. The entire city council meeting doesn't need to be involved.