SC upholds Evil Christian Prayer at Rochester Town Hall meetings

[blzrul]

It's Greece I believe. A world away from most places. Also, who gives a dang, no-one goes to those meetings. Buncha suburbanites. Now the satanists can erect a statue or something like they're going to try in Oklahoma. Fun times.

Edited May 6, 2014 by blzrul

[B-Man]

Room to Pray :A small victory for civilization

 

By Kevin D. Williamson

 

FTA:

The case was Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Susan Galloway et al., and the question was whether the town fathers of a Rochester suburb you’ve never heard of were doing violence to the Bill of Rights by allowing citizens and clergymen to lead prayers before meetings of the town board. The plaintiffs in the case were Susan Galloway, a Jewish woman who describes her history of activism as beginning with a refusal to sing Christmas carols as a junior-high student, and Linda Stevens, a retired public-school functionary and atheist who served in the august position of president of the Greater Rochester Chapter of the National Organization for Women and as vice president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Ms. Stevens complained that the overwhelmingly Christian character of the locals’ prayers made her feel like she would “stick out,” and so, naturally enough, she filed a lawsuit, apparently immune to the irony that her response to what she perceived as a situation encouraging conformity through social pressure was to seek federal action mandating conformity at gunpoint.

 

 

After the lawsuit was filed, the powers that be went out and recruited a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess, and a Baha’i believer to help lead prayers, in order to better reflect the rich cultural mosaic that is suburban Rochester. I do wonder how one goes about recruiting a Wiccan priestess; I suspect Craigslist is a factor in that quest. But such ecumenical gestures were not enough for Ms. Stevens and Ms. Galloway, though they were sufficient for five members of the Supreme Court, who did us all the favor of keeping their noses out of the penumbras and leaving be arrangements that have been in place since before the founding of this republic and that have continued uninterrupted since. Justice Elena Kagan, working in the characteristic progressive mode of more or less subordinating the law to her own prejudices, which no doubt are very enlightened prejudices, pouted that the prayers on offer in Greece “betray no understanding that the American community is today, as it long has been” — can you guess? — “a rich mosaic of religious faiths.”

 

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has done the people of this country a magnificent service over the years by restraining his imagination and boring us all to death with the letter of the law, noted in his concurrence that the First Amendment is a constraint upon Congress, not upon the township of Greece, N.Y.; that it explicitly permits not only the encouragement of religious belief but the actual establishment of churches at the state and local level; that the men who wrote the First Amendment and who fought in the Revolution did not seem to believe that the Bill of Rights was in conflict with Massachusetts’s deciding to have an established Congregationalist church or with Pennsylvania’s choosing not to establish any church, in deference to the nonconforming sensibilities of its Quaker-dominated public culture, but rather that the First Amendment ensured that the federal government was bound to permit either outcome; and, finally, that even if the “no establishment” rule were to be applied to Greece, N.Y., permitting the offering of prayers before a board meeting is not the same thing as establishing a church. An established church is a government-supported ministry paid for by tax dollars, not a social convention that makes the local NOW president feel like she sticks out, which experience with that organization suggests she very well may under many diverse circumstances.

 

Evangelical atheism is a puzzling phenomenon, and one that should not be confused with simple nonbelief.The project of evangelical atheism is to purify the public square of vestigial Christianity through the forcible actions of the state. The public square is to be tagged with the marks of evangelical atheism the same way that overpasses are tagged by graffiti painters marking their territory. The issue is not a few atheists or non-Christians made to feel awkward; if being made to feel awkward were unconstitutional, we’d have to send in teams of federal marshals to shut down high-school homecoming dances.

 

More at the link:

Edited May 6, 2014 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

So you're not offering an opinion on Constitutionality, but rather are simply expressing your feelings on the issue, if I'm understanding correctly? If so, that's reasonable, though I disagree.

 

I think a case could be made that my view is consistent with the intent behind the First Amendment - that the authority of the state should not be based on religious considerations. My preference is for a clean, distinct separation, but I recognize that's not supported by precedent, nor is it the only interpretation of the First Amendment.

[3rdnlng]

I think a case could be made that my view is consistent with the intent behind the First Amendment - that the authority of the state should not be based on religious considerations. My preference is for a clean, distinct separation, but I recognize that's not supported by precedent, nor is it the only interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

Yes, a point can be made either way but I think this document displayed our country's fathers intent:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.........

 

 

Compare the great statesmen and thinkers then with the weenies now.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I think a case could be made that my view is consistent with the intent behind the First Amendment - that the authority of the state should not be based on religious considerations. My preference is for a clean, distinct separation, but I recognize that's not supported by precedent, nor is it the only interpretation of the First Amendment.

I agree a case could be made. Indeed it has.

 

I simply don't see how that case could withstand Constitutional rigor, which is hasn't.

 

I'm interested in how you'd attempt to reconcile the negative application of "shall not establish", with positive intervention in municipal affairs, leading with: "shall not practice".

Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

I agree a case could be made. Indeed it has.

 

I simply don't see how that case could withstand Constitutional rigor, which is hasn't.

 

I'm interested in how you'd attempt to reconcile the negative application of "shall not establish", with positive intervention in municipal affairs, leading with: "shall not practice".

 

One man's positive influence is another's not.....I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable.....this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion

 

 

Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors....

 

Discretion is the better part of valor

[Gary M]

 

Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors....

 

Discretion is the better part of valor

 

Which passage is that?

 

 

Matthew 28:19-20

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching themto observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

[3rdnlng]

One man's positive influence is another's not.....I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable.....this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion

 

 

Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors....

 

Discretion is the better part of valor

 

It's elected government people asking for it, not some outside group attempting to impose their will on people. The only ones attempting to impose their will on people were the two women brought in from NOW and some athiest group.

[Gary M]

It's elected government people asking for it, not some outside group attempting to impose their will on people. The only ones attempting to impose their will on people were the two women brought in from NOW and some athiest group.

 

And they fail to see the irony!

[TH3]

It's elected government people asking for it, not some outside group attempting to impose their will on people. The only ones attempting to impose their will on people were the two women brought in from NOW and some athiest group.

 

Whaa? It is now a government sanctioned religious opening

Which passage is that?

 

 

 

Matthew 28:19-20

 

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching themto observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

 

And that would be exactly - when placed in a government setting - exactly using the government setting to sanction their religious viewpoints....

 

Let me try another way....If I went to that meeting and felt that I was in the middle of a governmen being a proponent of a religion.....Isn't that enough? Don't we err on the side of caution? You know...be .....conservative in these areas?

Edited May 6, 2014 by baskin

[TakeYouToTasker]

One man's positive influence is another's not

/facepalm

 

Positive as in demanding action, and negative as in demanding inaction; not positive as in good, and negative as in bad.

 

I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable

So what? The role of the First Amendment is not to prevent you from being "uncomfortable", it is to prevent rule by Divine Right.

 

this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion

Horse ****. This decision has guarenteed the right to practice one's religion without interference from the government. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

 

Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..

Of course you don't, because you aren't guided by religious principles. Faith is central to the lives of the religious, and as such, their faith is carried with them into every endeavor. They don't put their faith aside when they enter the public square, and important decisions are being made, because faith is central to their morality. Don't like it? To bad, as the only way to remove the influence of religion on government is to forbid the religious from participating in government or voting. Go ahead and make that First Amendment argument. I'll wait.

 

in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors....

I love it when people who don't read or understand the Bible try to make arguments backed with snippets from the Bible. Invariably this leads to cherry-picking phrases taken out of context, which is exactly what happened here.

 

The Bible speaks of praying in many different ways and places. The passage you are referencing speaks to making yourself small before God, and admitting the frailty of the human spiritual and moral condition at the end of each day in order that you stay humble before God. This is one type of prayer, not the only type of prayer. You'd be best served to not pretend as a voice of authority on topics you so clearly don't understand.

 

Discretion is the better part of valor

I checked my Bible, and didn't find a single Shakespeare quote in it.

[TH3]

Well TYTT,

 

I just don't agree with you or your bullet points or the Scotus decision. I think specific religious acts in a government setting goes past "freedom of speech" and goes into government sanctioning of a religion.

 

I think the decision - and if you read it - are - well bad policy. The Scotus decision bars anyone (gov't entities like state legislatures) from further deciding what is allowed and what is not in these "prayer moments". They took the governor off - I think that is going to lead to trouble.

 

As I said on the page before - The Roberts court is extremely aggressive in their decisions - overturning decades of previous policy that has worked well and as well legislation strongly approved in a bipartisan manner.

 

What is "allowed" in terms of prayer in public government settings has been clearly defined for the better part of a century - and people have seemed to live with it without Issue - now it is open game - all rules are out. Hugely popular - and bipartisan legislation regarding voting and minorities - overturned, Overwhelming bipartisan legislation regarding election funding - overturned.

 

Heck - I even think the basis for the ACA being upheld was suspect.

 

All of these decisions overturning decades of accepted policies, previous decisions, or bipartison and popular legilsation overturned 5-4.

 

I guess they know best.....

 

I will leave you with this: "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by others.....but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father in secret, and your father who sees you in secret shall reward you.

Edited May 6, 2014 by baskin

[Tiberius]

 

 

So what? The role of the First Amendment is not to prevent you from being "uncomfortable", it is to prevent rule by Divine Right.

 

No. It so that people can't use religion to persecute others or to force them to endure a government tied to one of the many, many different interpretations of the "Holy Texts"

 

It is in fact an admission by the founders of the corrosive and destructive tendencies of religion. And why it should be kept seperate from the government as much as possible. And feeling uncomfortable with the use of mystic rituals in government matters is exactly what the founders, in part, had in mind.

 

You are wrong about the divine right part because several of the states--remember the Bill of Rights was originally just Federal--had established religions into the 1830's yet were still republican in nature, but they got rid of the established religious nonsense anyway.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well TYTT,

 

I just don't agree with you or your bullet points or the Scotus decision. I think specific religious acts in a government setting goes past "freedom of speech" and goes into government sanctioning of a religion.

...

 

Government sanctions all religions, and forbids none. That's what Freedom of Religion means.

 

I'm curious, however, where you are finding the word "sanction" in the First Amendment? I see words forbiding establishing a state religion", but none preventing worshipers from worshiping.

 

I think the decision - and if you read it - are - well bad policy. The Scotus decision bars anyone (gov't entities like state legislatures) from further deciding what is allowed and what is not in these "prayer moments". They took the governor off - I think that is going to lead to trouble.

"Taking the governor off", as you put it, is allowing the freedom to worship. Having restrictions in place restricts the freedom to worship. That's what restrictions do.

 

What slippery slope do you think we're walking down here? The Constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a Theocracy. No one is passing laws forcing you into religious adherence. Individuals are simply expressing their right to worship. They aren't forcing, or even asking, you to follow suit. Why do you take issue with their worship?

 

As I said on the page before - The Roberts court is extremely aggressive in their decisions - overturning decades of previous policy that has worked well and as well legislation strongly approved in a bipartisan manner.

 

What is "allowed" in terms of prayer in public government settings has been clearly defined for the better part of a century - and people have seemed to live with it without Issue - now it is open game - all rules are out. Hugely popular - and bipartisan legislation regarding voting and minorities - overturned, Overwhelming bipartisan legislation regarding election funding - overturned.

What does any of this have to do with Constitutionality? Stare decisis is not the Constitution. Bi-partisain law is not the Constitution. There is no such thing as settled law. Each Court is different, and each Congress is different. This is the price you pay for treating the Constitution as a living document.

 

Heck - I even think the basis for the ACA being upheld was suspect.

I don't disagree.

 

All of these decisions overturning decades of accepted policies, previous decisions, or bipartison and popular legilsation overturned 5-4.

Specific examples citing the attributes you've ascribed to them, please.

 

I guess they know best.....

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

I will leave you with this: "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by others.....but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father in secret, and your father who sees you in secret shall reward you.

Again, stop quoting cherry-picked snippets from a Book you don't understand. You've quoted a passage condemning proselytizing, not public prayer.

Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[TakeYouToTasker]

No. It so that people can't use religion to persecute others

The First Amendment includes no such language. It simply forbids the establishment of a State Religion.

 

or to force them to endure a government tied to one of the many, many different interpretations of the "Holy Texts"

Yeah. That's what forbiding rule by Divine Right means.

 

It is in fact an admission by the founders of the corrosive and destructive tendencies of religion. And why it should be kept seperate from the government as much as possible. And feeling uncomfortable with the use of mystic rituals in government matters is exactly what the founders, in part, had in mind.

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of the Founders were deeply religious men, though a small minority were deists. I have never seen a sound argument for your position, as no evidence of it is contained in any writings I am aware of. There is, however, much evidence to the contrary.

 

You are wrong about the divine right part because several of the states--remember the Bill of Rights was originally just Federal--had established religions into the 1830's yet were still republican in nature, but they got rid of the established religious nonsense anyway.

 

Learn your history. This is what Jefferson had to say on the issue in his Dansbury Letter, in which the phrase "seperation of church and state" was coined:

 

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect

[TH3]

TTYT.

 

You are good at arguing...but not seeing others points of view.

 

What is so hard about understanding that if I - or anyone else goes to government meeting - and that meeting is opened with a very specific religious point of view - that I cannot feel that government is establishing that particular religion?

 

How can it not be taken any other way? If one had never been to this country and showed up and went to a government hearing that opened with - pick you religion - a very specific prayer - whelp - without anyone prejudicing your opinion - you would think "Whelp - I guess that - pick your religion - is part of this government"

 

I agree that every court is different. My view is that this current court is a very activist - not conservative - and has a very specific agenda.

Edited May 6, 2014 by baskin

[B-Man]

Freedom for Religion, Not From It

 

 

Jonathan S. Tobin

 

 

 

 

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Supreme Court elevated historical meaning over constitutional law doctrinal tests.

 

Prof. Ann Althouse

 

 

Multiple excerpts form the justices opinions here.

 

 

 

I would add (although I know that I'll be mocked by the small minded)

 

That appreciate TYTT's patience and clarity in explaining this subject to those who have a predictable knee-jerk reaction.

 

It has helped all the posters I think.

 

 

.

[The Big Cat]

It's slow at work, I haven't come round here in awhile, and I'm sure this will get ignored, but I'll just think aloud here for a second:

 

From what I gather, the distinction with Greece is that their town meetings court--at least in theory--constituents who have come to petition, et al.

 

In that spirit, taken in a vacuum, I don't agree with the decision, but here on planet Earth, I have no problem with it.

 

As I understand, prayer bans at town meetings like those in Greece are meant to facilitate a process of government that doesn't alienate those non-elected officials who have come to participate. But, since we're talking about Christian prayers, I have to question to what degree someone would be truly alienated from the process.

 

If instead the prayers were some bizarre, in-tongue incantation that involved dancing, screaming and an appeal to some monster-god (perhaps pasta in nature), then yeah, I could see alienation being an issue. But I don't think a quick, 20 second Christian prayer, in the spirit of tradition (as Kennedy argued) will throw too many people that far off their game.

[Tiberius]

The First Amendment includes no such language. It simply forbids the establishment of a State Religion.

 

 

Yeah. That's what forbiding rule by Divine Right means.

 

 

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of the Founders were deeply religious men, though a small minority were deists. I have never seen a sound argument for your position, as no evidence of it is contained in any writings I am aware of. There is, however, much evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

Learn your history. This is what Jefferson had to say on the issue in his Dansbury Letter, in which the phrase "seperation of church and state" was coined:

 

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect

 

No, you are wrong, and I see why you are making it JUST about divine right. That opens the door for every other type of religious bigotry imaginable. As I stated, there were Established Religions at the state level. In your interpretation religion could invade every sector of public life...as long as it does not created a divine right monarchy. That's ridiculous.

[Dorkington]

Our government, local or federal, should not be promoting any religion as part of it's function and service. To me a prayer in this context is inappropriate. If the members want to pray together, by all means, do it on your own time.