Supreme court Approves Council Prayers

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've often felt this, too. In the "In God We Trust" case on money, the Supreme Court said essentially the same thing, that it was meaningless socio-cultural-traditional something or other. Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to the reason Congress added it in the 1950s, to make a statement that the nation was not, in fact, godless.


George Will has a good column this week describing the only way they can actually get away with it -- by pointing out the Founding Fathers did this in Congress before, during, and after sending out the Bill of Rights for ratification.


I'm also no fan of, well, let George explain it better:



And




Taking offense as memetic power-seizing vector to shut down other people I find a thoroughly disgusting development. However, it was perhaps inevitable in a nation with absolute, unencroachable freedoms -- weasel arguments of injury to the mind now try to get around the prohibition on Congress interfering in speech, religion, etc.

This trend will, sadly, only get worse in the coming decades as better brain studies will tempt those who would override the First Amendment for their own political gain to point to brain studies, "See? Real, physical damage therefore I silence thee using men with guns."

This is silly. Shifting the blame on the people feeling divided and alienated when you take a divisive and alienating action is ludicrous and shirking responsibility, as is the anti-PC refrain that people are "choosing" their emotional reactions. And, of course, religious establishment is about more than just hurt feelings anyway.

 

[ehcks]

My first response was the beloved "moment of silence." But then again, who cares about that?

If they want a moment of silence, they can cover their ears, close their eyes, and not speak.

Many in congress already have the first two down.

 

[Corsair 115]

The majority held that ceremonial prayer — an encouragement to gravity and sobriety — is not harmful to the plaintiffs, who felt somehow coerced when present at public prayers, and who said such prayers are necessarily divisive. The court should have told them: If you feel coerced, you are flimsy people, and it is a choice — an unattractive one — to feel divided from your neighbors by their affection for brief and mild occasional expressions of religiosity.

The flip side of that argument: the folks who insist on some sort of religious proclamation—however watered down—are so flimsy in their beliefs that they can't stand the idea of there not being even this small public demonstration of religion, are so weak in their respective faiths that they cannot simply pray in private without the self-aggrandizing need for making it public. (And let's not even mention that New Testament passage which calls for prayers to be done as private matters.)

 

[Brown]

(And let's not even mention that New Testament passage which calls for prayers to be done as private matters.)

TOO LATE!

Also surprising is that the Supreme Court smiles on something that is expressly contrary to one major religion. But screw THAT religion, am I right? The spokesman of that religion took the position that public prayer is a sign of hypocrisy and it's just for pious show; the Almighty pays no attention to such phony-baloney "prayers." In particular, this spokesman said:

Matt. 6:5 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. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matt. 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But what did he know?

It is often overlooked that there is nothing--NOTHING!!--preventing governmental officials from performing any religious rituals or devotions in private, if they choose to do so. There is no coercion, no recommendation, no penalty, no scorn, no votes lost or gained, no overt show of phony piety, no distasteful offense to others, and NO FRICKIN' FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUITS if the governmental officials seek divine guidance in private on their own time.

 

[Corsair 115]

TOO LATE!

Thank you! You have saved me from having to search for that passage again.

 

[Beerina]

So George Will admits that it IS an attempt to shove religion on everyone, but it's ok, because it's only a little religion, so get over it.

As long as we agree that it is an attempt to force religion on everyone...

No, I think he realizes it. He's just pointing out that it violates the first amendment is a modern invention out of whole cloth.

Even the famous statement by Jefferson about a wall between church and state was contemporaneous with Jefferson accepting such prayer as not being a violation.

I have criticized my fellow atheists here many times for indeed participating in an active war on religion, largely from the pov that you have not learned why using government to persecute other religions is bad.

Every breath you take is with the same evil intent any other religious zealot ever had in trying to use government to dominate.The feigned offense people bring up as justification is laughable, and has nothing to do with why government should not be involved in religion.

 

[Beerina]

TOO LATE!It is often overlooked that there is nothing--NOTHING!!--preventing governmental officials from performing any religious rituals or devotions in private, if they choose to do so. There is no coercion, no recommendation, no penalty, no scorn, no votes lost or gained, no overt show of phony piety, no distasteful offense to others, and NO FRICKIN' FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUITS if the governmental officials seek divine guidance in private on their own time.

The idea government may insinuate itself into vital areas of life, like governance, then strip it of any religious ancillary activity like, say, praying they will do a good job, is also a modern invention out of the blue.

That religion is a quaint lifestyle choice you are permitted, by government, to do "over there", is at odds with historical importance of religion to people as an integrated part of their lives.

They chose to forbid government, i.e. politicians, from pushing it out via law or government activity, for very good reasons. The reverse is not true -- people are not, and cannot be, stripped of their religiousity in their beliefs and attitudes to any and all activities, including governance. It is part of who they are, and is protected.

People want to pray before a legislative session because governance, like shoving food down your throat, is a massively important part of life and hence something you would pray for.

That it is done as part of an opening ceremony on-site instead of off is a historical anachronism never understood to be a violation before modern times.

The justification George Will correctly mocks -- that some weak minds feel entitled to an existance free from exposure to things their dainty sensibilities don't cotten to -- is utterly silly as rationale.

 

[Pup]

The reverse is not true -- people are not, and cannot be, stripped of their religiousity in their beliefs and attitudes to any and all activities, including governance. It is part of who they are, and is protected.

People want to pray before a legislative session because governance, like shoving food down your throat, is a massively important part of life and hence something you would pray for.

I don't get it. Nothing is stopping officials from praying before legislative sessions. A private prayer meeting of all the Christian officials before a session would be completely protected, and if others wanted their own different ones, Jews, Muslims, etc. could do the same.

The justification George Will correctly mocks -- that some weak minds feel entitled to an existance free from exposure to things their dainty sensibilities don't cotten to -- is utterly silly as rationale.

I see the problem differently. As I understand it, what this means is that officials can conduct public religious rituals in which other officials (and perhaps the public too) must either pretend to take part or, if they don't want others to assume they endorse the ritual, openly refuse to take part in some way that draws attention to themselves. In other words, it's a public test of faith (edited to add: without official consequences for failing, of course, but an official public test nonetheless).

In a country free from a state religion, officials should not be required to undergo a public test of faith.

 

[AlBell]

I don't get it. Nothing is stopping officials from praying before legislative sessions. A private prayer meeting of all the Christian officials before a session would be completely protected, and if others wanted their own different ones, Jews, Muslims, etc. could do the same.

Based on what I see, read, and hear I think that the bolded comment would draw a lawsuit. JudeoChristianity is imo under full attack in the US now.

 

[Brainache]

Based on what I see, read, and hear I think that the bolded comment would draw a lawsuit. JudeoChristianity is imo under full attack in the US now.

If, by attack you mean people expecting it to abide by the same rules as everyone else...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Based on what I see, read, and hear I think that the bolded comment would draw a lawsuit. JudeoChristianity is imo under full attack in the US now.

What country does US stand for? I am unfamiliar with it.

 

[Dissolution]

Based on what I see, read, and hear I think that the bolded comment would draw a lawsuit. JudeoChristianity is imo under full attack in the US now.

The entire SCOTUS being made up of JudeoChristians would be unsupportive of your claim.
I'd suggest the opposite and say that Christianity in particular is very much on the attack.

 

[pgwenthold]

They chose to forbid government, i.e. politicians, from pushing it out via law or government activity, for very good reasons. The reverse is not true -- people are not, and cannot be, stripped of their religiousity in their beliefs and attitudes to any and all activities, including governance. It is part of who they are, and is protected.

Who is preventing any government official from praying?

What is at issue here is whether there should be a formal prayer to open a council meeting. That''s not stripping any single person of their religiousity, it's preventing them from pushing it out via government activity.

Seriously, I can't understand how you could even write this paragraph considering the topic of this thread. Actually, I can, because of your track record. But it's completely mental. How does "start the council meeting with a prayer" not constitute government pushing religion out via a government activity?

 

[pgwenthold]

The entire SCOTUS being made up of JudeoChristians would be unsupportive of your claim.
I'd suggest the opposite and say that Christianity in particular is very much on the attack.

Oh, it's the same nonsense. JudeoChristian religion is under attack because some uppity atheists don't want to let good, upstanding christians (make no mistake, it's not about the Jews) be able to use their position in government to promote their religious activities anymore.

IOW, taking away illegal entitlements is persecution.

 

[d4m10n]

…some uppity atheists don't want to let good, upstanding christians (make no mistake, it's not about the Jews) be able to use their position in government to promote their religious activities anymore.

I would argue that atheists are central to this line of cases, including both Galloway and Marsh, not merely as plaintiffs but as the group most likely to be inconvenienced by having to face the dilemma of either "passing" as devout or else drawing negative attention by walking out.

That said, Jewish legal scholars constituted 75% of the dissenting vote this time around. Last time, too.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would argue that atheists are central to this line of cases, including both Galloway and Marsh, not merely as plaintiffs but as the group most likely to be inconvenienced by having to face the dilemma of either "passing" as devout or else drawing negative attention by walking out.

I was talking about the so-called "attacks on JudeoChristians" that were mentioned.

 

[d4m10n]

Yet to meet any “Judeo-Christians” though I've known a few Messianic Jews. Fascinating people, incidentally.

 

[ddt]

When will you be running? Where do I have to move to vote for you?

I don't think anytime soon, but thanks for the compliment.

(I will, by the way, be shamelessly stealing um, quoting this...)

You're welcome!

 

[pgwenthold]

Yet to meet any “Judeo-Christians” though I've known a few Messianic Jews. Fascinating people, incidentally.

"Jews for Jesus"?

 

[MontagK505]

I hope Satanists petition to give the invocation.

“Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times.
Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and
comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions,
not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions
with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm
against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared
its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-abcarian-scotus-20140505-column.html