Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

by **Greed and Death** » Mon May 05, 2014 10:47 am

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/opini ... ore-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?

by **Brilliant Equestria** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:00 am

What a surprise, another 5-4 SCOTUS decision split along purely ideological lines.

greed and death wrote: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.

No, but you do have to learn the coercion test instead. That means they're allowed to make religion as public as they want as long as they aren't actually coercing you into practicing it. Hell, Thomas and Scalia ruled they can totally coerce you as long as they aren't legally forcing you to!

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:14 am

Yes! Freedom of Religion wins again!

by **Kelinfort** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:20 am

Brilliant Equestria wrote:What a surprise, another 5-4 SCOTUS decision split along purely ideological lines.

greed and death wrote: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.

No, but you do have to learn the coercion test instead. That means they're allowed to make religion as public as they want as long as they aren't actually coercing you into practicing it. Hell, Thomas and Scalia ruled they can totally coerce you as long as they aren't legally forcing you to!

Most of these decision aren't split this way, only the news grabbing ones. When I visited the Court in 2011, they had a 7-2 decision, based on patent law.

by **Great Nepal** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:21 am

Yes I totally cant see how a prayer led by a clergy, in majority of cases Christian clergy, is endorsement of religion at all. :palm:

I wonder how many times they have called Atheist to open the assembly or how many times they called a Hindu pujari or Buddhist monk or Muslim imam...

by **Neutraligon** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:40 am

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

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:44 am

Great Nepal wrote:Yes I totally cant see how a prayer led by a clergy, in majority of cases Christian clergy, is endorsement of religion at all.
I wonder how many times they have called Atheist to open the assembly or how many times they called a Hindu pujari or Buddhist monk or Muslim imam...

People volunteered. If a Hindu or Muslim wanted to, they would let them.

by **Death Metal** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:48 am

Murkwood wrote:Yes! Freedom of Religion wins again!

"loses". the word is "loses".

by **Great Nepal** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:50 am

Murkwood wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Yes I totally cant see how a prayer led by a clergy, in majority of cases Christian clergy, is endorsement of religion at all.
I wonder how many times they have called Atheist to open the assembly or how many times they called a Hindu pujari or Buddhist monk or Muslim imam...

People volunteered. If a Hindu or Muslim wanted to, they would let them.

No, people were invited: "the body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer, (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain", I want to know when they invited Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist...

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:50 am

Death Metal wrote:
Murkwood wrote:Yes! Freedom of Religion wins again!

"loses". the word is "loses".

No one is forced to pray, and anyone can preach any religion. How does religious freedom lose?

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:51 am

Great Nepal wrote:
Murkwood wrote:People volunteered. If a Hindu or Muslim wanted to, they would let them.

No, people were invited: "the body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer, (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain", I want to know when they invited Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist...

Why invite an Atheist? Rather counter-intuitive.

by **Agritum** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:52 am

Time for a Satanist town prayer mass.

by **Greed and Death** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:53 am

Neutraligon wrote: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.

by **Great Nepal** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:53 am

Murkwood wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:No, people were invited: "the body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer, (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain", I want to know when they invited Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist...

Why invite an Atheist? Rather counter-intuitive.

Hey, if opening with a prayer is not endorsing religion then there should be no problem with an atheist leading procession.

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:54 am

Great Nepal wrote:
Murkwood wrote:Why invite an Atheist? Rather counter-intuitive.

Hey, if opening with a prayer is not endorsing any religion then there should be no problem with an atheist leading procession.

But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:56 am

greed and death wrote:
Neutraligon wrote: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 would assume that people at the state legislature or in the US congress are both adults...I think.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:58 am

Murkwood wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Hey, if opening with a prayer is not endorsing any religion then there should be no problem with an atheist leading procession.

But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

If there is no religious purpose then their should be no problem with an atheist saying a few words to open the meeting. It doesn't have to be a prayer.

by **European Socialist Republic** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:58 am

Murkwood wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Hey, if opening with a prayer is not endorsing any religion then there should be no problem with an atheist leading procession.

But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

Instead of praying we could give arguments for evolution, Big Bang, global warming etc.

by **Great Nepal** » Mon May 05, 2014 11:59 am

Murkwood wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Hey, if opening with a prayer is not endorsing any religion then there should be no problem with an atheist leading procession.

But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

Because why not?
I mean, its non religious then an atheist should be able to conduct the ceremony as well as a Christian.

by **Murkwood** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:00 pm

European Socialist Republic wrote:
Murkwood wrote:But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

Instead of praying we could give arguments for evolution, Big Bang, global warming etc.

Because only atheists believe those. :roll:

by **Greed and Death** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:01 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
greed and death wrote: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 would assume that people at the state legislature or in the US congress are both adults...I think.

And state legislature prayer has been upheld as well.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

by **European Socialist Republic** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:02 pm

Murkwood wrote:
European Socialist Republic wrote:Instead of praying we could give arguments for evolution, Big Bang, global warming etc.

Because only atheists believe those.

I don't think that was implied... but I believe it is more common amongst the religious in America to not believe in those.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:04 pm

greed and death wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
I would assume that people at the state legislature or in the US congress are both adults...I think.

And state legislature prayer has been upheld as well.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

Which I still don't get. Ah well.

by **Threlizdun** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:07 pm

SCOTUS fails to enforce the separation of church and state again. How unsurprising.

by **Greed and Death** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:08 pm

Threlizdun wrote:SCOTUS fails to enforce the separation of church and state again. How unsurprising.

No SCOTUS has defined this as not violating the separation of church and state.

Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

Who is online