SCOTUS decides 5-4 that official town meetings can open with prayer.
Thoughts on the case? I think nobody will be surprised on my opinion in the case, and I will not be surprised to find this thread a train wreck later, but I’d like something to discuss besides global warming “pseudoscience” and the CvE debate. Perhaps we can have some constructive discussion
Seeing as how the 1st Amendment states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I have no quarrels with this decision. The town persons who do not wish to pray are free to not do so. If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.
Being that it has now been decided, there’s not much else to say. However, it’s a victory in one regard, but not an all-encompassing victory for those wanting greater leeway for faith to intrude upon government matters. The court said a prayer could violate the Constitution if there was an attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert nonbelievers, so again the exact, specific circumstances of the prayer practice in this one particular community decided the outcome of the case, and it may not set a sweeping precedent elsewhere if other communities are not mindful of its limitations.
I will never understand “freedom of religion” in this country.
The public town hall. Apparently ok. HS football team, not ok.
Ok to do pray-stuff in public town hall, not ok to run your private sector business according to your long-recognized faith belief/practices.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’d like something to discuss besides global warming “pseudoscience”
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I will never understand “freedom of religion” in this country.
The public town hall. Apparently ok. HS football team, not ok.
Ok to do pray-stuff in public town hall, not ok to run your private sector business according to your long-recognized faith belief/practices.[/quote]
I think the easiest way to explain it is that a) the exact set of circumstances always dictate the legal outcome, so no two cases are ever the same and b) the First Amendment applies more to religion and government than it does private property or private practices - i.e., public sector issues. Case law is really complex and it always hinges on how the justices are going to interpret what is oftentimes a very unique set of circumstances specific to one time and place. Yes, sometimes you even see contradictory rulings over time (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson reversed by Brown v. Board).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok to do pray-stuff in public town hall, not ok to run your private sector business according to your long-recognized faith belief/practices.[/quote]
Yep. These two should be reversed.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]
It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]
It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.[/quote]
There are absolutely no constitutional grounds for the position that prayers should be expunged from public institutions. Nor are there any grounds under the British legal system from which US law developed.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/
The concept of ‘separation of church and state’ was invented by an anti-Catholic bigot and klansman - Justice Hugo Black.
If prayer is part of who I am and how I make decisions, as an elected representative I have every right not only to pray, but to allow it to guide my decisions. Using a personally constructed morality to guide your public policy decisions is no better than using institutionalized ones or even ones supplied through revelation. Purposely banning prayer is to legally institutionalize one belief about god over another. To allow, but not require participation or allow coercion is the only way to not endorse one belief system over another.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
Being that it has now been decided, there’s not much else to say. However, it’s a victory in one regard, but not an all-encompassing victory for those wanting greater leeway for faith to intrude upon government matters. The court said a prayer could violate the Constitution if there was an attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert nonbelievers[/quote]
As it should. That’s never ok.
However I find this absolutely not “faith intruding on government matters”. Firstly, that is pretty impossible to avoid unless you want a person of faith to be a complete ass hypocrite while in office (not that there aren’t a million hypocrites already). Or unless you think only atheists should be elected to office (I’m fairly certain you’re not that silly). Everybody carries their worldview into office.
They did make an effort and even asked if atheists and other faiths wanted to lead the prayer/moment.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However I find this absolutely not “faith intruding on government matters”. Firstly, that is pretty impossible to avoid unless you want a person of faith to be a complete ass hypocrite while in office (not that there aren’t a million hypocrites already). Or unless you think only atheists should be elected to office (I’m fairly certain you’re not that silly). Everybody carries their worldview into office.
[/quote]
Indeed they do carry their worldviews into office, and of course it neither should nor could be any different. But there is a serious difference, as far as I’m concerned anyway, between a governing body made up of people of individual and free conscience on the one hand, and a governing body which prays to a deity during the course of the execution of its official duties as a governing body.
Half of PWI would melt into a puddle of blind indignation and crimson fury if a local government somewhere in the United States began reciting Muslim prayers at the outset of convention. Or, even better, how about a town government that begins its official proceedings with, “We hereby and in good faith promise–to each other–that we will execute the duties of our offices faithfully, because there is no God and there is no plan and we are thus solely responsible for ourselves, each other, and the well-being of our society.” PWI would collapse into a vinegary vortex.
As push says distinctions are important. Was the US founded by Muslims? Were the founders Muslims? How many mosques existed in the colonies? Has Islam given Americans some cause for concern in recent past? Maybe? Just a little?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important.[/quote]
The distinction being, Christians are free under the 1st to run public prayer meetings during their city counsel meeting, Muslims are not?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Indeed they do carry their worldviews into office, and of course it neither should nor could be any different. But there is a serious difference, as far as I’m concerned anyway, between a governing body made up of people of individual and free conscience on the one hand, and a governing body which prays to a deity during the course of the execution of its official duties as a governing body.
[/quote]
We only have the Establishment Clause to go off of, and it is somewhat vague. What constitutes government recognizing and established religion is variant depending on the circumstances. I have read several articles on the ruling, and it appears that the manner and style of the “prayer” were partial reasons for the outcome.
That having been said, the ruling doesn’t dictate that a governing body “praying to a deity” during the course of its execution of duties always operates within the confines of or is otherwise protected by the COTUS, the devil is just in the details. Having the prayers initiated and recited by members of the public, and thus citizen initiated as opposed to recited and established by the town council itself, appears to have been a mitigating factor in how this particular case was decided.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important. Was the US founded by Muslims?[/quote]
Distinctions are important. Distinctions like, things that are relevant, and things that are not relevant in even the broadest sense of the term. Your second sentence is the latter.
Edit: As are the rest of your sentences.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]
It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.[/quote]
What are your grounds for this argument? Surely you realize the words “separation of church and state” exist nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important. Was the US founded by Muslims? Were the founders Muslims? How many mosques existed in the colonies? Has Islam given Americans some cause for concern in recent past? Maybe? Just a little?[/quote]
That particular history is irrelevant. Apparently all faiths and thought-based groups were welcome and never discouraged from choosing to have their own prayer recited at the meetings, if the news accounts are accurate. If they passed a rule that favored one religion over another, and specifically prohibited, for example, a Jew, deist or Muslim from reciting a prayer, I can guarantee the outcome of this decision would have been different.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As push says distinctions are important.[/quote]
The distinction being, Christians are free under the 1st to run public prayer meetings during their city counsel meeting, Muslims are not? [/quote]
Indeed.
I wonder: Are you, Sexmachine, literally saying that you think there are Constitutional grounds to ban Muslim prayer in the relevant circumstance while allowing Christian prayer in the relevant circumstance? Please do point me to the Article and Section wherein I can find the Constitutional justification for such a proposition.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]
It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.[/quote]
What are your grounds for this argument? Surely you realize the words “separation of church and state” exist nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
Indeed I am.
I am also aware that my First Amendment right is violated when I am impelled by law to pay for a government meeting wherein prayer to a deity is recited ex cathedra.