Supreme court Approves Council Prayers

[pgwenthold]

Thank you; that better expresses the point I was struggling to make above with my "ceremonial deism" reference- that it can't be meaningless ceremony and meaningful prayer at the same time. And it's certainly a little hypocritical (at best) for these folks to pretend to others that it's the one just so they can maintain for themselves the privilege to politically proclaim the other.

If it really is just ceremonial deism, and means nothing in terms of religion, why are they fighting so hard to keep it. It obviously means a lot to to those who defend it.

 

[Brown]

We've been reading the First Amendment all wrong!! I looked it up: it says that government may not engage in any practice "respecting an establishment of religion except in cases of historical, traditional or ceremonial significance, and except in cases where there is no exploitation to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief...." Don't know how I could have missed those words!

Actually, I don't see those words, but the Supreme Court does. So they must be there.

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?

 

[I Ratant]

Oh SNAP!!!!

 

[Hux]

Does that mean i would not be able to say a prayer, out loud, to my favourite God, Thor?

 

[tsig]

This ought not be a surprise to anyone. That is, it ought not to be a surprise to anyone who has been reading the idiocy that seems to flow from Justice Thomas in religious cases. Thomas has taken this position for nearly ten years now. As I wrote in the Pledge case from 2004:In a later case, Thomas acknowledged that he had taken some flak for this position, but he did not expressly renounce it. But he stands alone in his bird-brained position:Even in today's decision, Justice Scalia refused to join in the part of Thomas's opinion that adhered to this foolish analysis.

As for the bit about the 14th Amendment, it has been observed that Justice Thomas MIGHT have had a point ... had the case been decided before the Civil War.

In his dissent in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), Justice Stevens addressed Thomas's absurd position:Anyway, you can read today's opinion here. There will be lots of commentators commenting on the opinion without having read it; I recommend reading it first, but not if you have recently eaten.

Now, let me put out some red-meat commentary that you might see elsewhere: Prayers are traditional, prayers are ceremonial, say the boys in black, which may of course be true. But that rather spectacularly misses the point. Prayers are also religious, and if that is not so, then so-called houses of prayer ought to lose their religious status and start paying their damned taxes.

Or how about this one: There is a lot of talk about privatizing things. Well, perhaps we ought to privatize religion. Get government out of the religion business!

To sum up the argument:

Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

[TEVYE & PAPAS]
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I hope Satanists petition to give the invocation.

 

[The_Animus]

I hope someone attends every meeting noting who gave the prayer and what it consisted of so a year from now they can challenge it again pointing out it was all Christan proselytizing (most likely).

 

[mutile]

To sum up the argument:

Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

And to sum up the opposition:

Let's use tradition as justification for getting rid of tradition.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And to sum up the opposition:

Let's use tradition as justification for getting rid of tradition.

None of those words are "establishment" or "religion". Are they written in magic marker like the exceptions the justices read in?

 

[Brainache]

So the Constitution and its amendments are just "Tradition" now?

I guess that's the end of the gun lobby then...

 

[Manopolus]

Roberts- Catholic- with majority
Breyer- Judaism- minority
Ginsburg- Judaism- minority
Kennedy- Catholic - majority (wrote majority opinion)
Scalia- Catholic- majority
Thomas- Catholic- majority
Alito- Catholic- majority
Kagan- Judaism- minority (wrote dissent)
Sotomayor- Catholic- minority

I think the really disturbing question is: Why do we have only Catholics and Jews in The Supreme Court? Is there something in the vetting process that demands you must either be Catholic or Jewish? Is it surprising that a court with this sort of a lack of diversity votes against protecting diversity?

 

[mutile]

So the Constitution and its amendments are just "Tradition" now?

Remove the word just.

Going by the tone of outrage expressed by the OP the issue seems to transcend a simple legal one.

If you are only discussing the legality of the situation then it is an academic issue best resolved by those trained in law. If your legal system does not have a mechanism for dealing with an abuse interpreting the law, then that is a flaw of the system.

If the discussion is what ought to be legal or not then the constitution is irrelevant and is an appeal to tradition.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think the really disturbing question is: Why do we have only Catholics and Jews in The Supreme Court? Is there something in the vetting process that demands you must either be Catholic or Jewish? Is it surprising that a court with this sort of a lack of diversity votes against protecting diversity?

Might be an odd happenstance. It was Protestant until recently.

 

[tsig]

Remove the word just.

Going by the tone of outrage expressed by the OP the issue seems to transcend a simple legal one.

If you are only discussing the legality of the situation then it is an academic issue best resolved by those trained in law. If your legal system does not have a mechanism for dealing with an abuse interpreting the law, then that is a flaw of the system.

If the discussion is what ought to be legal or not then the constitution is irrelevant and is an appeal to tradition.

The supreme law of the land isn't used to determine what's legal or not?

 

[tsig]

None of those words are "establishment" or "religion". Are they written in magic marker like the exceptions the justices read in?

"No establishment of religion" obviously reads "no establishment of religion except Christianity".

 

[RockNroll]

How big of an entitled douche do you have to be to want, and fight for, something like that?
As an atheist, I sure as hell wouldn't want city council meetings, or any other government function, to include a part where everyone talks about how there's no basis or evidence for believing in god(s).

I guess some of those people see separation of religion and state as "the atheists winning", rather than a default position that protects all religions as well as no religion.

 

[progressquest]

How long do you think it will take to unwind all the damage this SCOTUS is doing?

 

[Armitage72]

I hope Satanists petition to give the invocation.

I've only lived near (15 miles) Greece for a couple of years, but the invocation was apparently delivered by a Wiccan once.
They have had the invocation delivered by non-Christians...four times in the last 15 years.

 

[ddt]

I've only lived near (15 miles) Greece for a couple of years, but the invocation was apparently delivered by a Wiccan once.
They have had the invocation delivered by non-Christians...four times in the last 15 years.

And only in 2008, when this lawsuit was started.

 

[halleyscomet]

I can see where this is going...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XiizB9Lkqk