Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist?

[Tx4obama]

Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case about the constitutionality of a New York town's practice of beginning local legislative meetings with mostly Christian prayers.

During one exchange, Justice Antonin Scalia pressed a lawyer for the town of Greece -- which is arguing that a court of appeals erred in ruling that the prayers violated the establishment clause of the Constitution -- on the equivalent of prayer for nonbelievers.

"What is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious?" asked Scalia, a devout Catholic.

The lawyer, Thomas Hungar, had trouble pinning down an answer, which eventually led Justice Stephen Breyer to interject with a remark that is being seen by atheist and non-theist advocates as a possible admission that he may share their views on religion.

"Perhaps he’s asking me that question and I can answer it later," Breyer said, seemingly suggesting that Scalia had directed the question about nonreligious prayer to him.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/stephen-breyer-atheist_n_4241515.html

[cui bono]

1. Non-religious doesn't necessarily mean athiest.

Maybe he just doesn't go to church, or doesn't identify with any organized religion. Doesn't mean he doesn't believe in a god.

[longship]

3. I don't think there's not much difference where Scalia is concerned.

They are all damned.

[pacalo]

4. +1.

[Luminous Animal]

5. "What is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious?

From the Oxford dictionaries:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

So, to be religious does not mean one has to belong to any organized religion. It means, quite simply one believes in a higher power.

For those who are not religious, that don't believe in a higher power, there is no equivalent of prayer.

[bananas]

9. That's a screwed up definition.

"The laws of physics" could be considered "a superhuman controlling power".
Heck, the weather could be considered "a superhuman controlling power".

[Luminous Animal]

12. SuperHUMAN. I.e., having the qualities of a human with superior power.

[bananas]

13. "Above or beyond the human; preternatural or supernatural."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superhuman

Nothing about "having the qualities of a human"

[Lordquinton]

11. Why are people so scared of Atheism?

Non-religious but believing in god, you would still pray to god, the only way this question would be tough to answer is if in this context "Non-religious" means atheist.

[Chan790]

2. I'm not sure how to feel about this...

not Breyer's possible atheism, I don't really care about that.

His interjection ribs me a little. In so far as you can predict the leanings of a Justice by their questions, Scalia's question suggests that he's disposed towards upholding the ruling of the lower court that statutory prayer at the beginning of public meetings of the town body violates the establishment clause; a position that I would expect Breyer to affirm as a liberal and as a purported atheist. Instead, his interjection seemingly runs contrary to that by implying there is a equivalent and valid non-theistic practice which he'll discuss with Scalia later.

[SoCalDem]

6. All the wasted energy around religion, is ridiculous.

We are a SECULAR nation that believes in religious FREEDOM . The founders were particularly attentive to some details.... "congress shall not...", but cleverly ambiguous to other details. This is probably because some/many? of the founders were not all that religious, and they may have wanted religious issues to remain "murky", so that each group could rest assured that whatever it said, was done on their behalf.

Most people were agrarian and tended to live in harmony with their fellow non- Native American (perhaps out of necessity for protection from those Native Americans whose land the newcomers planned to steal). Except for the obvious zealots who shunned people and burned "witches" for amusement, most people were pretty occupied with day to day existence to worry a whole lot about whether or not their particular brand of religion was getting its due respect & coddling.

Our country was founded on "the commons".. That's precisely what e pluribus unum is all about. The "many" most assuredly will include people of many faiths, but we are commanded to put aside differences (micro), so that we can achieve unity, civility, harmony (macro).

Religiosity to the nth degree is the biggest detriment to that philosophy, because if you think your faith is the ONLY true faith and that any who are NOT of your faith, are doomed to eternal damnation, you have made them "the other", and have made it easy (perhaps even necessary) to eliminate them.

A true secularist is a live & let live person who doesn't care one way or another about religiosity, and sometimes their own "Pollyanna-ish" beliefs end up being their downfall. I am a secularist (who was raised Catholic). I never bought into magical thinking, but I don't mind if others are religious...as long as they do not preach to me.

The evangelical religious cannot stop themselves from preaching..and that's our conundrum. In some ways, I can understand their dilemma. If they truly band together and stay apart, they are derided as a cult, but if they follow their commands and mix in, their behavior ends up making them zealots in the eyes of others.

Secularists like me, just want them ALL to STFU about their faith..enjoy it, practice it, but keep it out of the commons.

[freshwest]

10. +1,000

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Oh No! Scandalous!

Or not.

[JI7]

8. since they are answering Scalia it's hard to tell if it means anything

we know Breyer is more liberal and whatever his personal beliefs that his position will often be different from Scalia.

even many Catholics would differ with Scalia on these issues.