• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

SCOTUS upholds prayer at public meetings

Looks like God is not dead yet in this country to the sorrow of some of our friends on the left.

SCOTUS upholds prayer at public meetings - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

I have no problem with the ruling, but I suspect you will if you take the time to read more about it. Here, let me help you out, from your own source:

Acting in a case brought against Greece, N.Y., over its practice of allowing local ministers to deliver prayers at town board meetings containing beliefs specific to particular Christian denominations, the court’s majority said such prayers are legally permissible as long as the government does not discriminate among those seeking to present a prayer.


Read the part I bolded again. That means that Satanists, Wicans, and even those most terrible Muslims will have to be able to deliver those prayers if they ask to...and they will. How are you going to act the first time a governmental meeting in your town is opened with a prayer to Allah? Or Satan? Vishnu? Shiva?
 
I suspect that NP will sleep through those as well. ;)

When you just know that you are right then hearing a prayer or even a sermon will not change anything.
 
I have no problem with the ruling, but I suspect you will if you take the time to read more about it. Here, let me help you out, from your own source:



Read the part I bolded again. That means that Satanists, Wicans, and even those most terrible Muslims will have to be able to deliver those prayers if they ask to...and they will. How are you going to act the first time a governmental meeting in your town is opened with a prayer to Allah? Or Satan? Vishnu? Shiva?

But the suit was brought by an Atheists who didn't want prayer at all and a Jew who didn't like the prayer containing a reference to Jesus who was a Jew. Amazing.
 
Can't wait to hear the response to this. :popcorn2:
I have no problem with the ruling, but I suspect you will if you take the time to read more about it. Here, let me help you out, from your own source:



Read the part I bolded again. That means that Satanists, Wicans, and even those most terrible Muslims will have to be able to deliver those prayers if they ask to...and they will. How are you going to act the first time a governmental meeting in your town is opened with a prayer to Allah? Or Satan? Vishnu? Shiva?
 
The quicker way for this to die out is if Islamic Prayers were done before meetings. THEN most on the right would be SCREAMING seperation of church and state.
 
But the suit was brought by an Atheists who didn't want prayer at all and a Jew who didn't like the prayer containing a reference to Jesus who was a Jew. Amazing.

Not exactly. The two who brought suit wanted a nondenominational prayer. I can see both the dissenting view of Breyer, and the majority view of Kennedy in this, but think Kennedy was best. The government cannot edit for content prayers(that is clearly a first amendment violation to my mind, even saying they have to be nondenominational), and you have to let whoever wants to have an equal chance(can't show favoritism in religion, again a first amendment violation).
 
The quicker way for this to die out is if Islamic Prayers were done before meetings. THEN most on the right would be SCREAMING seperation of church and state.

In a way, I think that is Kennedy's thinking. Since you have to let every one who asks perform a prayer, as he specifically states in his majority ruling, then the meeting will be under tremendous pressure to stop the practice of letting any one pray as soon as an unpopular religion or two take their turns.
 
Not exactly. The two who brought suit wanted a nondenominational prayer. I can see both the dissenting view of Breyer, and the majority view of Kennedy in this, but think Kennedy was best. The government cannot edit for content prayers(that is clearly a first amendment violation to my mind, even saying they have to be nondenominational), and you have to let whoever wants to have an equal chance(can't show favoritism in religion, again a first amendment violation).
From CNN:

Co-plaintiffs Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway challenged the revised policy, saying officials repeatedly ignored their requests to modify or eliminate the practice, or at least make it more inclusive.
"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens told CNN from her home. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."


The city claims they would allow anyone to offer a prayer. Good enough for me.
 
From CNN:

Co-plaintiffs Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway challenged the revised policy, saying officials repeatedly ignored their requests to modify or eliminate the practice, or at least make it more inclusive.
"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens told CNN from her home. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."


The city claims they would allow anyone to offer a prayer. Good enough for me.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_4f57.pdf

Respondents, citizens who attend meetings to speak on local issues, filed suit, alleging that the town violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian prayers. They sought to limit the town to “inclusive and ecumenical” prayers that referred onlyto a “generic God.”
 
A good read on this ruling, I learned alot: Opinion analysis: Prayers get a new blessing : SCOTUSblog

Treating the Kennedy opinion as controlling, because it spoke to a middle-ground approach between blocs of Justices who wanted to go further in one direction or the opposite, this is the constitutional prescription it provided for legislative prayers:

  • First: Such prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings.
  • Second: The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy.
  • 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.
  • Fourth: The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths.
  • Fifth: In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” — that is, promote one faith as the true faith — and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
  • Sixth: The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message.
  • Seventh: Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults — thus raising the question whether the same outcome would apply if the audience were a group of children or youths, such as the Boy or Girl Scouts, appearing before a government agency or a government-sponsored group. (The Court did not abandon its view that, at public school graduations or at events sponsored by public schools, prayers are not allowed because they may tend to coerce young people in a religious way.)
  • Eighth: A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances. In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith.
 
Thank you, NP. As with every one of your posts we are all not doubt overwhelmed once again by the depth your gotcha intellect. What a grand example of a life well lived!

Here's what I think the problem is, Risky...

The Christians continue to OUT PRAY all other religions. What other explanation is there? They must be tearing it up. They must be praying on steroids. The Christians finally figure out how to take over the United States Government...pray, pray, pray.

Okay Muslim, Jews, Hindus, Scientologist...and all of you other religions...get off your asses and start praying like hell. Want god on your side? Pray, pray, pray...and vote in Presidents who will appoint S.C. Justices who aren't just Christian praying folks.
 
Thank you, NP. As with every one of your posts we are all not doubt overwhelmed once again by the depth your gotcha intellect. What a grand example of a life well lived!


What did I say that was wrong RT?
 
I suspect that NP will sleep through those as well. ;)

When you just know that you are right then hearing a prayer or even a sermon will not change anything.


I am sorry I just don't see it that way. There is a move in this country by the Left to remove God from everything. That must not happen....Although it is a small victory it is a victory no less for the God Fearing people in this country.
 
For the most part, so long as the government itself is ruling by laws of man and not laws of god, it's not terribly inconsequential to allow prayer at the beginning. However, as a civil society and respectable people I hope that we can understand how exclusive practices can have negative impacts on the rest of our society and People and work together in a way to ensure the inclusion of all. If we are to be civil. If one just wants to jump up and down and shout "**** you atheists! I do what I want!", they are free...but definitely juvenile and will likely just cause a bigger issue further down the road.
 
Can't wait for the beautiful sound of the gong of reason and logic to start resonating across the nation. What will it sound like? It will sound like freedom from religious oppression.
 
I am sorry I just don't see it that way. There is a move in this country by the Left to remove God from everything. That must not happen....Although it is a small victory it is a victory no less for the God Fearing people in this country.

You did not read the ruling or the case, did you? No one was trying to remove prayer. This does make it easier for nonchristians to have their prayers heard before such events.
 
Outstanding.

The secular humanists don't have to like it either, LOL!

I am a secular humanist for the most part and agree with the ruling. Stupid assumptions are stupid.
 
I am sorry I just don't see it that way. There is a move in this country by the Left to remove God from everything. That must not happen....Although it is a small victory it is a victory no less for the God Fearing people in this country.

Rightwingers like NP have been trying to play this card for the last two decades. The left is not trying to remove God from this country....what has been happening is that the far right-wing evangelicals have been trying to inject their version of Christianity in the public square. Of course, anyone who believes in the Constitution knows that this is wrong and will righteously fight against it. America is a diverse country and all religious beliefs or non-beliefs are entitled to their views. Just because a bunch of pushy evangelicals with an activist agenda want to promote their beliefs over all others, doesn't make it right....and those who fight against them are not "trying to remove god from this country." Religion has its place in our society....but that place is not in the schools or in the public square. Personally, I have no problem with prayers at counsel meetings as long as efforts are made to ensure that all beliefs are presented and respected. Problem is.....the activist "Christians" do not want THAT....what they want is to make sure that only their perverted version of Christianity is represented....or at least that they have the vast majority of the voice.
 
Back
Top Bottom