Think the SCOTUS opening prayer ruling is no big deal?

[jeff47]

So, you think the SCOTUS ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway is no big deal. So what if city councils start their meeting with a prayer?

Well, that ruling was just cited to defend Nevada's anti-gay marriage law.

Greece v. Galloway says it's OK to stomp all over the First Amendment because opening prayers were a longstanding tradition when the relevant amendments were passed. This new brief argues that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is OK, because that was a longstanding tradition when the relevant amendments were passed.

So if you thought the ruling only meant a few non-Christians would be uncomfortable for a minute, you were wrong.

[JoePhilly]

1. Slavery had a long standing tradition too ...

... this legal tactic won't work.

[jeff47]

4. You're assuming this SCOTUS gives a damn about precedent.

Slavery is explicitly forbidden by an amendment, so that's not a likely argument.

OTOH, there's lots of other long standing traditions that were blocked by previous SCOTUS rulings - Brown v. Board for example.

Since this SCOTUS doesn't give a damn about precedent, I don't think we can say this argument won't work in those situations.

[JDPriestly]

10. Actually, I haven't read the dercision, but I did some research on this at one point, and

I think the Supreme Court was following precedent.

The government is not allowed to establish a religion. Just having a prayer before a meeting does not establish religion is the theory.

The US Congress has a chaplain who opens each session.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

Hasn't done much to prevent a lot of lying, stupidity and corruption even among the most religious.

Having a chaplain doesn't harm anyone. I question whether it is helping anyone though.

[progree]

16. Unfortunately I think you are right about the precedent

The 1983 Marsh v. Chambers established the right of the Nebraska legislature (and other legislatures) to fund a chaplain at taxpayer expense and have prayer at the beginning of legislative sessions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Chambers

Thanks to the Town of Greece decision, expect more religious prayers at all kinds of government and public events. Some you might not like, such as prayers asking for God's guidance in steering homosexuals from perversion onto the path of righteousness. Prayers asking God's help for our women to follow the guidance of their servant - leader husbands, and for God's help for our men in providing for the women and girls in their care. And forgiveness for the descendants of Ham (blacks).

[JDPriestly]

24. I note with hope that during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, Congress selected a couple

of Unitarian chaplains. Maybe we can get more diversity and more liberalism in Congress if we elect more progressive senators and representatives.

[progree]

25. Maybe. I'm an atheist -- not a single congressperson (either senator or rep) is agnostic or atheist

or at least admits to that. Diversity in prayer-givers would be better than all-Christian all-the-time, but I much prefer not having somebody yammering on and on about some Sky-Daddy or Sky-Daddies (or Sky-Mommy(ies) for that matter) at a government function.

I believe (oops there's that word) that the only acknowledged agnostic / atheist in Congress ever was Pete Stark of California, but I could be wrong about that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. "...this SCOTUS doesn't give a damn about precedent..."

Despite the claims by Roberts at confirmation that he did.

On the bright side, Scalia can't last much longer.

If Republicans keep the House and take over the Senate you can BET Congress will stall any replacement indefinitely.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Oh, yeah ...

the Yahoos on SCOTUS are just plain awful JUDGES.

[spanone]

3. if it was a big enough deal for the supreme court to rule on it, it's a big deal

they WANTED the change, that's why they took it up....chip chip chip

[blkmusclmachine]

13. ^This.^

[progressoid]

5. Forward to the 19th century.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. ^And this.^

[sinkingfeeling]

6. What amendment addresses marriage in the US Constitution?

[JDPriestly]

9. The 14th.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The law protects the right to marry. In my view, no person should be denied the protection of marriage based on gender. If the law protects the right of a man and woman to marry, it should also protect the right of a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. To deny a man the right to marry just because he wants to marry man would be to deny that man the protection of marriage.

The status of marriage gives us many rights, and the first is the right to be recognized by the law as married to our spouse. In some courts, the fact that you are married to someone may affect whether that person may refuse to testify against you. There may be obvious tax advantages. A spouse may have pension rights that a mere partner might not have. There are a lot of legal rights that come with marriage.

That is my theory. I don't know whether it is the theory being used in the courts. But I think it should be.

[progree]

15. Here's their tie-in to marriage, from the document citied in the OP:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/222431634/12-17668-201
In upholding the town’s practice of beginning town council meetings with prayer, the Court made several statements indicating that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, should not be interpreted in a way that renders invalid a practice like prayer in public meetings that was well established at the time the First and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted. For example, referring to the Court’s earlier decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Court said:

Marsh stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the specific practice is permitted. Any test the Court adopts must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change.

So too here: Any “test the Court adopts” for determining Fourteenth Amendment limitations on a State’s authority to define marriage ought likewise respect “a practice”— namely, the man-woman definition of marriage that was universally “accepted by the Framers” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(All bold-faced emphasis added by me.) Back to the 19th Century.

Marsh v. Chambers, by the way is the 1983 Supreme Court decision allowing prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions, and taxpayer-funded chaplains. (a case brought regarding the Nebraska legislature). Dial-up warning:

[RoccoR5955]

7. Well then the next time someone starts a prayer at a public meeting that I attend

I will insist on reciting a prayer from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have my religious freedom too, and as an ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I plan to use it!

Remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster boiled for your sins!
May you all be touched by His noodly appendages.

Arrgh and R'Amen!



BTW - I read the brief in the link, and I believe that it is total bovine fecal material, and well be tossed out.

[DesertDiamond]

20. That's a great idea! I've been wanting to do this in the town I live in. I can get all of my friends

who are wiccan, the various schools of Buddhism, and whoever else wants to bring in a Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer, their Invisible Flying Purple Unicorn prayer, etc. And an atheist to give one or two sentence statement saying there is no supreme being. See how long we can keep going on with this until the Christians blow a fuse. Because of course, prayers should only be THEIR prayers.

[progree]

22. Well well. Excuse me, but I'm going to give a Christian prayer

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment"

from "Sinners In The Hand Of An Angry God", Jonathan Edwards, 1741

Imagine how that would go over at the beginning of a city council meeting.


OK, so it's part of a sermon, not a prayer, but the essentials can be reworded into a prayer -- let's see,

"Lord Jesus, help us understand that the God that holds us over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors us, and is dreadfully provoked... "

[LeftyMom]

27. Rancho Cordova, CA (a suburb of Sacramento) had a Pastafarian invocation before a council meeting.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/10/07/church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-minister-delivers-rancho-cordova-meeting-invocation/

[progree]

28. One delivered a prayer asking for guidance from whatever higher power one believes in or other than

a higher power for those who don't believe in a higher power --

Someone called in to Thom Hartmann's show today (May 8) and said he was on a 7-member city council, and one of the council members always gave the prayer -- of course a Christian prayer. It was jokingly called the "weather report" because he always thanked Jesus for the rain and the sunshine and on and on.

Anyway the caller asked the mayor if they could rotate the prayer-giving among other willing council members. The mayor says, sure, how about you being next?

So the next council meeting the caller gave the prayer, where he asked for the blessing and guidance of God or one's higher power or whatever source if one does not have a higher power (or something like that as I remember it).

Anyway, the caller says that was the end of rotating the prayer-giving. From then on, it was back to the Christian "weather report" council member.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. It's a big fucking deal

It's a big fucking disaster.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. +1,000. And, wait until SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby. YIKES

[passiveporcupine]

17. Never thought it was no big deal

Just one more recent win for the religious right crazies. I sure wish all Christians would just accept religion for themselves, and not expect everyone else to become "Christian" too. Why can't we live in a sane country. There are a lot of sane Christians in this country...too bad they don't have a voice. We only hear the crazies, and they are the ones driving Republican policy.

[jtuck004]

18. SCOTUSblog mini-symposium on this

http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/town-of-greece-symposium/

Found here, as well as the quote below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/symposium-on-greece-v-galloway/

...
Town of Greece v. Galloway is a case about religious diversity – how to recognize it and how to accommodate it. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion upheld one version of recognizing diversity, which we might call “deep” diversity or “thick” diversity. On that view, diversity is best preserved by allowing each particular religious faith to express itself, no holds barred, provided that every other religious faith gets its turn.

But there is another way of acknowledging diversity, found in Justice Kagan’s dissent. That view, which we might call “consensus” diversity or “thin” diversity, responds to diversity by trying to find some common denominator between faiths, so that all faiths are placated, and no one faith is exalted over others. We respect diversity by each agreeing to tone down our particular faith, so as to respect the faith of others. …
...

So every religion and un-religion needs to make some kind of effort towards making sure their viewpoint is heard, demanding time or filing lawsuits (everyone has $$$, yes?) or they may find it lost.

About as un-American in spirit as a decision could be on the part of SCOTUS, I think.

On the other hand.

"...so that all faiths are placated..."

[progree]

19. Yup. Unfortunately there's no requirement that other religions be accomodated

http://news.yahoo.com/god-save-honorable-court-094500378--politics.html

... the five justices in the majority, held that 15 years of almost exclusively sectarian Christian prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause because the town board graciously invited representatives from all of the town’s congregations. That all of those congregations just happen to be either Catholic or Protestant, the majority said, is not the board’s responsibility: “So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to...promote ‘a diversity of views.’”

In other words, the 5 justices upheld religious majority rule.

[jtuck004]

23. I think there are several things that could be challenged there.

The definition including "congregations" is discriminatory on its face, because atheists or other religions are not organized in "congregations" and thus are not included, making this a forcing of a point of view...

“So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to...promote ‘a diversity of views.’”

It doesn't require them to go in search, but any denial of any point of view could challenge that policy of nondiscrimination it seems.

It certainly opens up the door for an almost infinite number of creative, humorous responses, and perhaps a few deaths.

This obviously ain't the end of this.

It's deeper than that though. This SC isn't the disease, just a symptom. I think it's a cultural problem, right along with Clown in Nevada (or whatever his name is) and the Westboro bigots and the rise in hate groups, cutting relief - these are all just symptoms. If it is a cultural problem it is very likely to grow like any disease afflicts the living unless we recognize it as such and attack it at that level. For good or bad, one of the single most important places to affect culture is education, and the people in this country are the product of what we have been doing, or not doing. That might need to change.

I don't mean fix the schools, though. Until we fix the adults, until they start living again like cooperation and respect are the foundation for them to thrive in this world, they can't fix the schools. And I think that particular problem might just be so difficult after so many years of inattention that something else will happen first.

[DesertDiamond]

21. My dad was right about the Dominionists. They are determined to take over this country and run us.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. YES YES YES they are.....read up on the beliefs of the 7 Mountain groups...

Which Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum Michelle Bachmann and Huckabee are all a part of...they aim to take over all "7 pillars of society" which is what the mountains represent. It is very Pentacostal....speaking in tongues...."hands on" healings....believing in evil witchcraft.....you name it. The whole shebang...