I dreaded this decision but didn’t have a lot of hope for any other result: the Supreme Court just allowed the town of Greece, in upstate New York, to begin its council meeting with a prayer. The rationale: “it’s traditional.” The vote was the usual 5-4, and, if you know your Court, you can guess with 100% accuracy who voted on each side.
This just happened this morning, but the New York Times reports:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a town in upstate New York may begin its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said “ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the town’s practices could not be reconciled “with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share of her government.”
Town officials said that members of all faiths, and atheists, were welcome to give the opening prayer. In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.
The pervasive Christianity of those prayers was the reason why the appeals court overruled the city of Greece, but the Supreme Court then overruled the appeals court.
The appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, agreed that the 1983 decision [a ruling that the Nebraska legislature could open its sessions with prayers] did not govern the case before it.
“A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court. “Roughly two-thirds contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Your Son’ or the ‘Holy Spirit.’”
Welcome to the theocracy! All I can suggest now is that atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Pastafarians, and Satanists flood the legislature with prayers. Of course, that won’t happen because the prayers are almost always offered by either members of the elected body or their official chaplains.
This Supreme Court has done more to obstruct progress in this country than even the Senate and House. And of course members like Alito and Roberts were chosen for just that purpose.
When I think about how thin the evidence for a god is—much less the Christian God—and how often its existence is nevertheless rammed down our throats by the faithful, I am sickened. It’s not a good day today.
The Supremes! 5 awful homo “sapiens”. Damn.
And of course there will be no way to get Congress to pass a law against this kind of thing or get 3/4 of the states etc etc.
I feel totally squashed by religion in the Courts – we atheists don’t stand a chance with a Catholic majority running things. It is really Inquisitional thinking – they would bring that back if they could – whenever I see a picture of Scalia it appears to me in opulent red robes declaiming “To the Stake!” Ugh.
//
Atheist activist Herb Silverman did take the opportunity to give an invocation at the City Council and several members walked out. This backfired, though, as even more Christians came out in public support of Silverman’s right.
Here’s his “prayer” in full. It’s so much better than any of the pious platitudes about “God.” We should inundate these government functions with stuff like this:
Awesome invocation!
I really like that. That isn’t an “atheist” invocation, it’s a secular one that’s compatible with anyone’s religion or lack of religion.
Every invocation should have been as inclusive.
Great “prayer”. The Christians who walked out revealed the bigots that they are. Good on the Christians who stayed & supported him.
This Supreme Court: Corporations are “people” protected by the First Amendment.
Non-Christians, and Christian of different sects than their government, are not.
Two thumbs up to you, and I wish I had more thumbs!
I can’t wait for one of the five to die of natural causes.
Here’s an invocation to which I could reply “Amen”:
Almighty God, in Your Infinite Wisdom, please put Scalia and Thomas in the same taxi that You zonk with an asteroid, sometime before the end of 2016. We would be ever so thankful. Bonus if Alito and Roberts are in the same clown car!
Jesus Christ, this Supreme Court sucks.
😀
You don’t contribute frequently enough, Marta!
When it comes to SCOTUS deaths, odds do not favor the court getting more liberal. The oldest members are Ginsberg (81), Scalia (78), Breyer (78), and Kennedy (76). Then it leaps to Thomas at 66 years old.
So, if these four were to die, we’d lose two solid liberals, one solid conservative, and the flipper.
Ok well, why have government at all then? Just let god do it.
That phrase “Americans *deem*” makes me sick a well.
The Supreme Court is not a democratic body and doesn’t face democratic elections. Their sole job is to interpret the letter of the law and ensure the Constitution is followed.
To decide that their job is also to interpret popular opinion and speak for The People is to grant themselves the power of tyranny.
Good point and well-said, Richard.
The Bird Bible ad on this past Saturday’s SNL is at least an indication of growing impatience with all things Biblical.
It’s not up on YT yet, but you can find it here: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live
It’s here: http://bit.ly/1ksN9lV
Unless there is more than one Bird Bible skit.
Thx!
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said “ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”
That wording “is but a recognition… ” demonstrates that Kennedy has just carved The Little People argument into American history. Well done!
Those Americans can deem whatever they want – on their own time. In a government business meeting, however, it would be nice if they stuck to doing government business.
…and it’s only Monday.
Aren’t there a few more landmark decisions due from the Supremes this week?
b&
Over on The Panda’s Thumb is a posting about the ongoing saga of the Freshwater case. This is a case where an ardent Creationist was quite frankly teaching Creationism and other Bible based dogma to his science class. He was terminated, lost every appeal, and now it is going to the Supremes. I used to be confident in how this would go. Now I am not.
yet more evidence for why we need more university scientists to enter the fray and assume a more activist role, educating the public about “how thin the evidence for God is–much less the Christian god.” university science departments should reward their faculty for such popularizing activities by including them as essential criteria for evaluation, along with research and teaching. religious obscurantism in the usa has reached critical mass.
Though I understand your frustration, I think it would be a very very bad step for many reasons for university science departments to make proselytizing atheism part of their curriculum!
Science isn’t a religion. It seeks evidence of claims made. Religion is simple blind belief without proof.
Atheism is not a religion to be proselytized. It is the antithesis of religion.
Regardless, it’s still a very bad idea for science departments to make questioning religion officially part of its curriculum.
Which branch of science does this? Please name some examples.
Science isn’t in the god business. They deal with the natural world and how it actually operates.
Science keeps providing answers that, unfortunately for the religiously devout, tend to keep revealing that the universe (and all it encompasses) has no need of an imaginary creator. Knowledge is the death of superstition.
Even if science DID “proselytize,” why is that not OK when it’s ok for religion to do it?
Of course no science does this! I was responding to the post which suggests science should do this:
“university science departments should reward their faculty for such popularizing activities by including them as essential criteria for evaluation, along with research and teaching”
That’s not me who wrote that, I replied that that would be a bad idea! Why do you keep insisting on misreading my posts?
I SAW ascanius’ post.
Where on earth did he/she say ANYTHING about “proselytizing atheism,” as YOU put it? Did YOU not misread his/her post?
Not all scientists are atheists/agnostics (though I’d like to ask the ones who have a belief in gods what methodology they used to conclude that these imaginary beings exist).
YOU said that “it’s still a very bad idea for science departments to make questioning religion officially part of its curriculum.” This was not ascanius’ words. They were YOURS. When I asked you for examples, you said no science does this. Then why say such a thing?
Why do YOU insist on putting words and ideas into the mouths and minds of others.
Science is devoted to knowledge. Religion is devoted to ignorance. Why shouldn’t science be free to question to the wrongheadedness of Dark Ages nonsense? The world does NOT work the way “holy texts” say it does. Religion SHOULD be challenged, always and everywhere…by EVERYONE.
Again I say:
If it’s OK for religion to proselytize, you cannot turn around and say that it’s a bad idea for atheists to do it. This is rank hypocrisy and yet another attempt at religion receiving exclusive privileges for themselves alone.
Good luck with that.
“including them as ***essential criteria*** for evaluation, along with research and teaching”
My emphasis, essential how? As part of gaining tenure, funding, grants etc? This would make a non-scientific ideology part of the formal policy of a science department, like science in the USSR or “science” at some creationist, evangelical colleges. How could that be a good thing? If I am interpreting that original post incorrectly, then please explain how: “university science departments should reward their faculty…by including them as essential criteria for evaluation”.
I think it’s not wrong to suggest this would be the same as “proselyting atheism”.
I have no issue (obviously as I find this site interesting and I am not a religious apologist, though you seem to think I am) with individual scientists who decide to “enter the fray”, such as Jerry Coyne, but I don’t think Jerry Coyne should be formally rewarded by his department in their appraisals of his work *as* professor of biology in his department for it.
So to summarize:
i) No beef with individual scientists speaking out to encourage scepticism of religion.
ii) Against the idea of making i) above part of the essential criteria in evaluating scientist’s work as university employees.
it’s in part this reticence on the part of university scientists to publicly engage that has led to such a widespread acceptance of young earth and intelligent design nonsense. our public universities need to serve the public good. staying silent on this is not in the public interest. why shouldn’t the academic scientific community be fully engaged in this? this is their area of expertise.
I think it would be interesting for a prayer opening a government meeting to include these words attributed to Jesus:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV translation)
For the religious folks who ask WWJD, we do have the answer to this question for public prayer.
They’d be quite happy to do so, for they’d just keep on to the next verse…which is the start of the instruction in the Lord’s Prayer.
b&
The gigantic, screaming, neon, elephant-sized important word there is “many”. “Many” does not mean “all”. Will they ever understand this?
Indeed. After all, many Americans are neo-Nazis, racists, even murderers.
More fuel for the rage fire, with data:
NY Times: In Justices’ Votes, Free Speech Often Means ‘Speech I Agree With’ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/politics/in-justices-votes-free-speech-often-means-speech-i-agree-with.html?_r=0
Thomas, Scalia, Altio, and Roberts vote to uphold the free speech rights of conservatives *more than three times as often* as liberals. Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are actually worse than Clarence Thomas at sticking up for the rights of non-conservatives. Kennedy sticks up for conservatives in free-speech cases “only” a bit less than twice as often as liberals.
Breyer and Ginsburg both have a slight liberal skew, but nowhere near as disgustingly one-sided.
We might ask ourselves why Alito and Roberts are on the SCOTUS in the first place. The responsibility lies with the folks in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Ralph Nader because they found Al Gore insufficiently pure for their exacting standards. Elections have consequences and we are living with those consequences, named Alito and Roberts today and likely will continue to live with them into the indefinite future. And if Jeb Bush is elected POTUS in 2016, it will get much worse as Ginsburg and possibly Breyer won’t make it to 2020.
Yes — and, while we’re at it, let’s blame rape on the hemline of the victim’s dress.
At the heart of your fallacious perspective is the notion that Nader was a more pure choice than Gore, and that people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore over Bush.
As we can see so painfully with Obama, who’s ordered far more executive mass murders than Bush, who’s poured gasoline on Bush’s quagmire in Afghanistan, who still hasn’t closed Gitmo, who’s not even pretending to hold the NSA’s or the CIA’s or the FBI’s reigns, and on and on and on…well, as we can see, voting for the lizard with the prettier voice doesn’t do diddly to keep you from getting eaten.
No, the fault for Bush and Gore being neck-and-neck in that election lies solely with those who voted for the two of them. Had you had the courage of your convictions, if you sincerely think Nader was more pure than Gore, and voted for Nader, then Nader would have won and neither Bush nor Gore would have won. By voting for an establishment candidate with an establishment so violently opposed to liberty and Enlightenment values, you yourself take full responsibility for the actions of the establishment. Without dupes like you to support establishment lizards like Bush, Gore, Obama, Clinton, and the rest, we wouldn’t have any lizards to deal with in the first place.
Cheers,
b&
Nothing is more devastating to an opinion then a number. All we need do is compare the 2 SCOTUS appointees of Bush with the 2 appointees of Obama and the 2 appointees of Clinton. Interesting that the 4 appointees of Clinton and Obama made up the minority in this particular decision. If Al Gore, who ole Ben trashes, had been elected, IMHO, his appointees would have come to a different conclusion then Roberts and Alito and likely enough on any number of other travesties those two miscreants have perpetrated.
I’m sure that ole Ben would not be at all put out if President Jeb Bush appointed the replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer.
So, Gore was unable to convince sufficient numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and “undecideds” to vote for him…but it’s the fault of the Greens that he lost. Never mind that your typical Green is every bit as much opposed to Democrats as to Republicans. And none of this has anything to do with a sense of entitlement, of spraying blame where it least belongs, or attempting to suppress all non-corpratist voices; no, your guy ran an incompetent campaign, and it’s anybody else’s fault other than his that he lost.
No, I don’t want Jeb Bush nominating anybody for the Court. I don’t want Hilary Clinton nominating anybody for the Court, either. Nor do I want Obama nominating anybody for the Court. Do you really think the President who’s presided over the vast expansion of the NSA, the same one whose Heritage Fund Fascist (in the original Mussolini sense of the word) takeover of the healthcare system (which was originally too conservative for even Republicans to support)…do you really think that his appointees are going to care about the Constitution and liberal democracy any more than he does?
But I’m sure you’re thrilled that the Lizard in Chief is committing mass murder by drone attack, has ordered the detailed surveillance of the entire planet, and has commanded that you tithe 20% of your health care expenditures to corporate executive “overhead.” He’s your lizard; of course you’re not at all put out by any of that.
Cheers,
b&
So, Gore was unable to convince sufficient numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and “undecideds” to vote for him…but it’s the fault of the Greens that he lost.
Actually, considering that
Gore won some 1/2 million more votes then did Bush, so ole Ben is seriously in error. Considering that Dubya, who saddled us with Roberts and Alito was the worst president in American history, save perhaps for James Earl Carter, Gore could hardly have done worse.
No, I don’t want Jeb Bush nominating anybody for the Court. I don’t want Hilary Clinton nominating anybody for the Court, either.
I’m no big fan of Hillary Clinton but I’d sure rather have her nominating Supreme Court justices then Jeb Bush. But I suppose that ole Ben will argue that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor really aren’t any better then Roberts and Alito. Not.
But I’m sure you’re thrilled that the Lizard in Chief is committing mass murder by drone attack,
Mass murder by drone attack? On what planet do you reside? Mass murder is what is going on in Syria these days, where more people get killed every day then have been killed by drone attacks since Obama took office. Furthermore, I am quite thrilled that Obama, given his caution about military intervention (haven’t yet bombed Syria or Iran), is in charge rather then McCain (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) or Rmoney (Obama is weak on Syria). The neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer have been noisily accusing Obama of dithering on military interventions. A little dithering would have been in order before marching into Iraq.
Here’re thousands in Pakistan alone.
http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
If that’s “dithering,” I’ll eat Jerry’s boots.
b&
And there have been some 140,000 people killed in Syria. That’s a lot greater then 3,000.
Were they killed by US troops acting on blatantly illegal orders from the President? No?
Have the Syrian people asked us or the UN to intervene militarily to stop the fighting? No?
…and your point would be…?
b&
For the information of ole Ben, some on the rebel side have asked for the US (and even Israel) to intervene on their side.
Even by your account, that’s so far shy of what’s required to justify military intervention it’s hilarious. Why, using that logic, Putin should have ordered his tanks into Kiev weeks ago.
b&
Ben, don’t let ideology trump reality or evidence. Until winners are required to get over 50% of the vote in each state and there are run-off elections when they don’t, in the system we have third party candidates can only harm their own causes. Even if liberals outnumbered conservatives over 1.9 to one, if they’re evenly split between the left-leaning centrist and the far-left activist the rich oil guy will still win. The winner is the side that has the most unity, not the side the most people would prefer.
It is ludicrous to claim that Al Gore, a guy who has done more to fight global warming and rally support for carbon regulation, who would have nominated center-left justices to the Supreme Court, would have been just as bad from a Green perspective as Bush. Paranoia aside, his own actions after losing the election have shown that he’s actually greener than Ralph Nader.
And simple math shows that, had a majority of Nader supporters voted for Al Gore instead, today’s decision would not have happened. Unless you actually believe that Gore would have nominated Roberts as well?
I’ve been a vocal supporter of electoral reform for as long as I can remember.
But — of course! — the Lizards have no interest in seeing the system change; the only way to actually change the system is by forcing their hands.
And the way to do that is by voting your conscience. Vote strategically; not tactically. Vote for the candidate you want to win, not the Lizard you think is most likely to win.
When enough people do that, it scares the shit out of the Lizards — as we see with all the venom sprayed at the Greens by the Democrats.
But, you know what? We’re not going to vote Lizard just because we don’t want to get the Lizards upset. Indeed, we want the Lizards to get upset, so that the Lizards will placate us, not the other way around.
And the best way for the Lizards to do that is with electoral reform. It’s even a smart tactical move on their part, because it’ll prevent the types of angst-filled “spoilers” that they so love to whine about.
So that’s really what it comes down to. Those of us fed up with the Lizards aren’t going to vote for them. We’re going to keep “spoiling” elections, whether you like it or not. If you want to do something about it, stop wasting your energy trying to get us to vote for your favorite Lizard; ain’t gonna happen. Instead, get your Lizards to protect their own hides by reforming the electoral system.
Cheers,
b&
Hey Ben, what have you got against lizards?
I’m sure I’ve already explained the problem with the Lizards.
b&
And what is it that Al Gore did to make him so vile, so unelectably evil that even after witnessing eight years of Bush, the unceremonious end of a balanced federal budget, the crash of the economy, the end of responsible banking regulation, the ballooning of the debt, the destruction of the middle class, the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, the eight-year hold on environmental progress, the surrender of the Supreme Court to the Religious Right likely to remain for decades, the Patriot Act, the “person”ing of inanimate entities and dehumanizing of actual humans, the crippling of the Voting Rights Act and financial election reforms, and finally the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and eight thousand dead Americans strewn around two countries that never themselves attacked us, that you’d still defend a vote for Nader? Knowing as you do now that enough people voted for Nader to have prevented all of that if they so desired?
Leaving out the fact that Al Gore has a thousand times the environmental track record of Ralph Nader, what is it that Gore actually did to make him just another “lizard” in your mind?
In a perfect world you could have voted for Nader as your first choice and still listed Gore as your begrudging second choice. I want that world, and would work with you to get it. But in this world, that chance to vote for the candidate you wish you had is in the Primaries. Come the general election in November the race is effectively down to two.
And, as long as you keep voting for lizards, even lizards you yourself don’t find too terribly objectionable, you’ll be stuck in this world forever. After all, the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.
Again, I’m not voting for lizards; nor is anybody else I know of who’s a registered member of a non-lizard party. The only hope the lizards have of reducing what they see as the risk of the worng lizard winning is electoral reform. But, even without electoral reform, the lizards still aren’t getting our votes.
b&
Nice rhetoric, but you didn’t answer my question.
I’ve already answered that elsewhere in this thread.
Obama was supposed to be even better than Gore, on all fronts. Look where that got us. I suppose it’s theoretically possible Gore wouldn’t have been worse than Bush, but Obama sure is. Gore’s running mate, Lieberman, sure as hell would have been just as bad; what does it mean when Gore ran so far to the right that he picked a proto-neocon ultra-religious conservative for his running mate? It would be passing strange for the one lizard of that lot to actually turn out to not be a lizard.
b&
I’ve already answered that elsewhere in this thread.
No, you haven’t.
So it seems you’re a single-issue voter. You don’t really care who the candidate is, what their position is on any issues, who they might appoint to federal courts, etc., your issue is that you will not vote for someone if they’re a member of one of the two major parties. You’ve got plenty of company since a lot of Americans are single-issue voters, for example, anti-abortion voters, gun rights voters, and so on. Seems a bit short-sighted to me, but hey, this is still America, one person, one vote.
Quite the contrary; I’ve been quite explicit in detailing substantive policy reasons for my objection to the people and parties in question. War, executive murders, official kidnapping, rampant corporate cronyism and profiteering, unfettered domestic espionage, and more.
Since that’s what the parties themselves stand for, should it be surprising that I have no interest in supporting those parties?
Would somebody in the USSR a couple decades ago have been a “single-issue voter” if she refused to vote for Communist Party candidates? Would you have criticized her for the destabilizing effect she had on the political system?
b&
Re Ben Goren
I suppose it’s theoretically possible Gore wouldn’t have been worse than Bush, but Obama sure is.
The notion that Gore would have been worse then Bush and that Obama is demonstrates beyond any doubt or question that Goren is either totally deranged or is a Poe.
I would venture to say that, if Gore had been elected, 9/11 might well have been avoided as I doubt that he would have brushed aside the warnings from Richard Clarke as the Bush administration so cavalierly did. Furthermore, the notion that Gore would have made SCOTUS appointments as odious as Bushes is ludicrous. The proof is in the appointments made by Clinton and Obama.
It’s clear all you care about are judicial appointments, and that the war in Afghanistan, the executive orders for mass murder and indiscriminate assassinations, the rape of the environment and the rampant pollution, the corruption and cronyism leading to absurd profit guarantees for health insurance corporations, the investiture of Big Brother, the ongoing kidnappings in Gitmo and elsewhere, the unprecedented increase in deportations, the exponential growth of minorities in prison for non-violent offenses, and all the rest…that none of that matters to you in the slightest. Even while mouthing platitudes to the contrary, Obama has either actively participated in all of that or actively avoided participation in conspiratorially-encouraging ways on each of those blights on civilization.
Hell, even his excuses sound pathetic. The Commander in Chief needs Congressional approval to order soldiers to release captives who aren’t even prisoners of war? It’s not his fault that his own DoJ is tossing more spics over his own Berlin Wall faster than anybody else ever has? Like, what the fuckity fuck fuck? Even the Pope’s bullshit doesn’t stink that bad.
I voted for Cynthia McKinney, but I had high hopes for Obama when he won the election. Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
b&
Well said, Richard C.
Nicely said. I say this to people who think they have a limited choice. You know how you make a candidate worth voting for – you vote for him! Vote for the candidates that best represent your values instead of trying to hedge bets & “vote strategically”.
And that’s how you end up with decisions like today’s.
Eddie Tabash was talking about this years ago, back during the Bush II years. What has become of the Supreme Court could yet be the most damaging wound caused by the Conservative / Religious Right in their bid for unopposed rule.
Scares the crap out of me, it does. 5 SCJs apparently intent on ending the Enlightenment. And the most prominent one clearly sociopathic, or perhaps just too evil for polite company.
Doesn’t scare me. It ticks me off!
Fundamentalist Christians just can’t seem to “keep it in their pants.”
What a precedent! Soon majority Muslim and majority Hindu towns can start town prayers with bows to Mecca and prayers to Shiva. Wonder what conservatives will say then.
Well, my reply got deleted for some reason (can’t figure out what it was. It wasn’t offensive in the slightest), so I’ll try again.
What would conservatives say? They would cry “FOUL!” long and loudly. After all, when conservatives talk about “freedon of religion,” what they mean is: “So long as your a Christian.”
But there is still a chaplain of the US Senate who opens sessions with a prayer. Why should a small-town council be different?
That is an excellent question. My only speculative answer is that the town council meeting hears proposals and appeals directly from the local community. So imagine what it would be like if you were a Hindu or Jewish and you have to sit through a mini Christian sermon, feeling coerced to bow your head with all the others, pray, with all the others. If you do, you are an apostate to your religion. If you do not, everyone sees you did not, and now they are going to consider your case.
They only see you if they weren’t bowing their heads too – you either find a hypocrite or an ally when you abstain from the prayer. 🙂 It’s how I find other atheists!
Well, as I pointed out below, I’ll see you if we’re ever in the same room where someone’s leading a prayer!
I can’t offer a better answer to your question than Mark S already provided. I went a-googlin’ and didn’t find anything readily, mainly because the Wiki page on Senate Chaplain contains interesting stuff, some I knew but had forgotten, some I did not know (I am very disappointe in Ben Franklin’s justification for a chaplain position. Here is the link to the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate.
I copied a couple of items from it:
In 2000, a C-SPAN “public affairs on the web” response to the question of constitutional challenges noted that:
“In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of having an official chaplain as deeply ingrained in the history and tradition of this country. They stated the ultimate authority for the position lies in the Constitution which states [read at the site] …
… In addition to court cases, controversy regarding the Chaplain’s position included a number of petitions to abolish both the Senate and House Chaplains that were submitted as early as the 1850s, for reasons [cont’ at site] …
… In 1984, Dr. Paul Kurtz, “a professor of philosophy and advocate of secular humanism,” sued the government in a case that reached the United States Supreme Court for the right to offer comments in place of the prayer that would normally be delivered by the Senate Chaplain or Guest Chaplain.[21] The Court denied his suit on the grounds that no individual has the “right” to address Congress, and that the delivery of the prayer, coordinated by the Senate Chaplain, was governed by policies that dealt with “prayers” (not “remarks”) which Kurtz did not seem prepared to offer.[21]
In 2007, the prayer delivered by Rajan Zed, the first Hindu Guest Chaplain was briefly interrupted by protestors described by news reports as members of the Christian Right.[4] Activists had organized supporters to lobby Congress to stop the delivery of the prayer and failing that action to interrupt the prayer itself.[4] The protestors were removed by the United States Capitol Police, charged with disrupting Congress, and barred from the Capitol and its grounds for twelve months.[29] …
I’m a little surprised the Roberts Court didn’t pull on its judicial activism boots and pardon those Christian Rights protester’s before COB that very day, restoring their visitation rights immediately.
Funny how it was Christians that sided with the Christian town and Jews who dissented. What were the chances?
In fairness, Justice Sotomayor is, at least nominally, a Catholic.
But she lived in New York, which makes her (and me!) a pseudo-Jew!
This is really, really disturbing. Worried about what other devolving decisions they’ll make.
I know I’m definitely far from the only one that’s contemplated the horror scenario that would be the two senior liberal justices holding on until 2016, and then a Republican becoming president and adding two more conservatives to the Court. Should that happen we’re all screwed.
I’m a fan of Ruth Bader Ginsburg so I really don’t like that she’s being constantly edged ever closer to the door, but if I were her I’d definitely be thinking constantly about the ideological bent of my next successor. Especially in a very conservative Court.
Of course, Scalia has been around for a long time too, but if god exists he probably doesn’t want him anytime soon, so he’ll probably be sitting on that court until he’s 98. He definitely won’t retire under a liberal president.
Granted, in the event that Republicans somehow win control of the Senate in the fall, Obama’s chances of having any liberal appointee approved will have pretty much become nil for the remainder of his presidency. At which point Ginsburg and Breyer might as well sit tight and keep eating their spinach to be healthy through 2016.
Reading the “NYT Picks” selected comments from the NYT article, I noticed this one:
“A wrong decision.
Will it make any difference to my every day life? Probably not.”
That could probably be argued is America’s problem in a nutshell. Let slide countless little things because they’re not a big deal and you’re, like, apathetic etc. And one day, all those countless little things have added up to one very very big thing which changes everyone’s life.
How is this NOT a blatant violation of church state separation?
Why do Christians feel a need to push their religion into every facet of American life, especially in places where it is HIGHLY inappropriate?
They have their churches, religious schools and homes. That’s MORE than enough.
I think they feel this need for three main reasons:
1. Like any good chain letter, the religion is substantially about proselytizing.
2. They believe the con that all morality comes from their very immoral book and so they imagine if they aren’t there there will be no morality.
3. It’s all they’ve got. There is no other reason to believe this stuff other than the legitimacy it gets from lots of other people believing it. They know this. They realize in their gut that if lots of authority figures aren’t seen believing religion, if it’s not given the stamp of government and deference by all, that it will be seen to be a farce.
Thank you, gluonspring. As the British say: “Bang on target!”
Apparently a majority of our supreme courts have difficulty reading the sections of the constitution that deal with guns, gods and the definition of “people”. I think this ruling is a travesty. On the other hand, I’ve never had any difficulty making it quite clear to anyone watching that I was not participating in any public prayer, and this will simply reinforce my behaviour of not bowing my head, not closing my eyes and not mumbling “amen” at the end.
When I was young (~ 10 years old) I used to think judges were part of different species. Above humans in every way capable of discerning truths we had no way of knowing.
By age 15 I was well on my way to knowing that judges are not only fallible, they are typically worse at making decisions than an average gas station attendant.
Yeah, and it’s helpful to remind yourself that all judges start off as lawyers! 😉
“Of course, that won’t happen because the prayers are almost always offered by either members of the elected body or their official chaplains.”
There are several ways around this Jerry. One for example is for atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers to go to the website for the Universal Life Church and register to become a minister. Here is the url: http://www.themonastery.org/ Sometime after completing the online process you will receive your ordination credentials in the mail. It is simple and free.
Becoming a minister in this church should be no great problem for many atheists. The Church only has two stated components to its church doctrine: (1) promote freedom of religion and (2) do the right thing.
It is a recognized church for purposes of performing marriages, funerals, etc. One can use these credentials to petition your local governing body to offer an invocation at their meetings.
I’m not certain I fully understand what Kennedy meant when he said:
“ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”
I wish someone with a law background could explain to me how what Americans deem regarding their existence (which varies from one American to another) has anything to do with the illegality of practicing religious rituals at town council meetings.
It appears that in ruling that prayer at town council meetings does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, Kennedy did not render an opinion based on jurisprudence.
“When I think about how thin the evidence for a god is”
Are you being overly kind and diplomatic again.
I have had a very good look for a very long time, there is NO evidence for a god.
What do have that moves none to thin may I ask, I’ll have a look.
But, as I said I have looked, sometimes in quite extreme ways, for over 40 years. There is nothing, no evidence at all.
What was it Benjamin Franklin said?:
“I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”
But then again, Franklin was something of a scientist himself. The man who helped draft the Constitution would be appalled at this decision to let religion into civil affairs.
Speaking as one of “the faithful,” although not of the Abrahamic variety, this is an appalling decision. It’s obviously wrong to anyone with a long and/or Constitutional view. These people cannot imagine a time when their faith does not pervade the institutions of wealth and power, so they open the door to things they would find even more abhorrent than I find the intrusion of religion into government.
Ugh, the city next to me just ADDED an invocation to city council meetings and cited this case as the impetus.