Down the Slippery Slope to a National Religion; From Your Activist SCOTUS

[rhett o rick]

The Supreme Court rules that government meetings can have an opening prayer. How can that not violate the Constitutional right of separation of Church and State?

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions.

"The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

Let’s get this straight; Justice Kennedy says that the prayers are only “ceremonial”? I wonder what God thinks about that. And they should be allowed because they are “traditional”? Wasn’t that an argument to support slavery? Oops, shouldn't say that too loudly, next the Court might strike down the 13th Amendment.

I counter the “ceremonial” and “tradition” argument with the slippery slope argument. Next thing you know the theists will be including God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, if you allow non-proselytizing prayers, you will start to get more proselytizing prayers.

As I see it, praying out loud with head bowed and maybe hands together is proselytizing. In my opinion the words, "and thank Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior" or something similar, is Christian proselytizing and has no business at government meetings. It is certainly aimed at impressing someone other than God. I haven’t seen any evidence that God cares how you pray so why does it have to be demonstrative? If you want your particular god to bless the meeting, discuss it with him or her in the parking lot before you go into the meeting.

The bad thing about this is that it pressures others to conform to the will of the majority. Who wants to be the only one in the room that isn’t praying? And what about other religions? Do they get to say their own prayers?

The Constitution is crystal clear in it’s meaning of, “ no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Having Christian prayers at the beginning of a government meeting qualifies as a test. You might as well ask public officials to raise their hand if they are not a Christian.

The religious Right-Wing has won another battle for "one nation under Christ".

[iandhr]

1. In high school I was on the debate team.

I had to learn how to argue positions I didn't agree with.

In that spirt I am going to play devil's advocate on this recent SCOTUS decision.

The Congress begins their daily session with a payer. Why is this different?

[postulater]

2. "With a payer"

*snicker*

[sakabatou]

4. Money is God to some of them

[Nye Bevan]

7. Best typo ever! (nt)

[Art_from_Ark]

13. So one of the Koch Brothers is now opening Congressional sessions?

Figures.

[Louisiana1976]

27. .......

[rhett o rick]

5. It's wrong even if the Senate does it. The Senate should not get a pass from upholding the

Constitution.

[former9thward]

12. The Senate and House have done it since 1789.

The Supreme Court itself opens with a prayer and always has.

[Orrex]

18. And they have always been wrong to do so.

[rhett o rick]

24. Well it's time to stop. We have a Constitution. nm

[randys1]

26. NO govt entity should open with a prayer ever

[Mika]

3. "And what about other religions? Do they get to say their own prayers?"

Here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017190968

[Populist_Prole]

6. Let's say these mooks eventually get their way: A theocracy

What religion? Obviously christianity.

Whose version? What sect? What sub-sect?

Over the years and living and travelling about and meeting with people has shown me lots of divisions of christianity aint exactly peas in a pod in how they get along with one another.

[Ikonoklast]

9. If they actually got what they wanted, the next step would be to start slaughtering each other.

Name any denomination the state religion in this country, and there would be insurrection on a scale never seen before on this planet.

[rhett o rick]

10. It's a king of the hill kinda thing. If Christianity became the national religion, then

the individual sects would start vying for the top religion. I think Jesus would be ashamed.

[AmBlue]

8. Ahem... Matthew 6:5 says:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men."

How about conforming to the will of their God, for heaven's sake?

[GeorgeGist]

11. What would they pray ...

if they knew Jesus was gay?

[KoKo]

14. Agree... and here's the religious affiliation of current Supreme Court Appointees:

Current U.S. Supreme Court Members

The following table lists the current members of the United States Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
See Also: Past U.S. Supreme Court Members
Service Birth
Name, state Assoc. Justice Chief Justice Yrs Place Date Died Religion
Antonin Scalia, DC 1986– — N.J. 1936 — Roman Catholic
Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988– — Calif. 1936 — Roman Catholic
Clarence Thomas, DC 1991– — Ga. 1948 — Roman Catholic
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– — N.Y. 1933 — Jewish
Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994– — Calif. 1938 — Jewish
John G. Roberts, DC 2005– — N.Y. 1955 — Roman Catholic
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J. 2006– — N.J. 1950 — Roman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. 2009– — N.Y. 1954 — Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan N.Y. 2010– — N.Y. 1960 — Jewish

Read more: Current U.S. Supreme Court Members http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/supreme-court-members.html#ixzz31Yla2SH8
http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE046331

[rhett o rick]

15. WHAT? And not an atheist among them? I am shocked! Shocked I say! nm

[KoKo]

16. I'd like to see a Protestant there, also.

It does seem to be a bit stacked. Although religious affiliation shouldn't be a requirement, strong religious bias in a Judge on Women's Issues with a few could be a problem and should have come out in a vetting by Senate inquiry. But, then we already know that Roberts lied about being an activist Judge and Clarence Thomas was forced in there...because of a lazy Biden who refused to allow witnesses who could verify Anita Hill's testimony.

But...then. It is what it is. I'm kind of leaning towards Term Limits for them these days.

[rhett o rick]

17. Yes, I agree. They have assumed too much power and I dont see a way out

other than Constitutional Amendment. They have way more power than originally intended by our founders as they included in the Constitution.

A hard spot I have is that I dont believe the Democrats fought hard enough to keep the kooks, including activist Roberts, off the court. My Demo Senator responded after she voted to approve him, said that the President should get his choice. And we get Roberts, a very young activist Chief Justice.

[WinkyDink]

20. Who then decided the vote for the ACA.

[rhett o rick]

21. Are you trying to make a point? If so, I guess I am missing it. nm

[WinkyDink]

25. The last person referred to is Justice Roberts. I hate his guts (the entire SCOTUS, actually), but

he was the deciding vote on the ACA.

[WinkyDink]

19. Exactly. Which is why the "Religious Right" will not see this mainly-RC SCOTUS impose a state

religion. If there is ANY religion the Fundies abominate, it is Roman Catholicism.

[KoKo]

22. Not sure about that. Strict Catholicism restricts "Family Planning" & Women's access to

Birth Control...and the Catholic Church banned movies up until the late 60's. I can see some similarities there.

[rhett o rick]

23. First step is to establish that Christianity is the State religion. I think they are both

on the same side. After that they might fight it out.