Separation of Church and State: SCOTUS Rules Town Can Begin Meetings with a Prayer

[boutons_deux]

Christian theocratic supremacists go nuts!

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/another-blow-separation-church-and-state-supreme-court-rules-town-can-begin?akid=11776.187590.EGTpo7&rd=1&src=newsletter989173&t=5

America gets more fucked every time The Five vote.

[FromWayDowntown]

That basically follows precedent -- Marsh v. Chambers, specifically. Ceremonial prayers during the meetings of governmental bodies have been permissible for some time. This case might have been a closer call than Marsh if only because the town was less pluralistic in who is permitted to pray, but I don't find this result particularly surprising.

[boutons_deux]

I hope somebody keeps score of how many govt meetings open with Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc prayers.

[Blake]

Shitty shitty ruling.

Slippery slope imo is that it leads to allowing prayer in the public classrooms too.

[FromWayDowntown]

Shitty shitty ruling.

Slippery slope imo is that it leads to allowing prayer in the public classrooms too.

Without reading the specific reasoning in the majority opinion, the Court's jurisprudence for about 30 years or so has drawn a pretty clear distinction between the constitutionality of prayer in forums where the likelihood of coercion is small (i.e., public forums where mostly adults who understand that they can walk out or protest without meaningful reprisals and where parents can remove children if they would prefer they not be in that environment) and those where the likelihood of coercion is high (i.e., schools, where impressionable children may not understand that they can opt-out or protest and where participation might be expected because of peer pressures or fear of gaining the disapproval of teachers (for example)).

Unless there's something in the majority today that suggests that those considerations should be ignored, I'm personally not terribly concerned with a drift toward organized school prayer.

[Blake]

Without reading the specific reasoning in the majority opinion, the Court's jurisprudence for about 30 years or so has drawn a pretty clear distinction between the constitutionality of prayer in forums where the likelihood of coercion is small (i.e., public forums where mostly adults who understand that they can walk out or protest without meaningful reprisals and where parents can remove children if they would prefer they not be in that environment) and those where the likelihood of coercion is high (i.e., schools, where impressionable children may not understand that they can opt-out or protest and where participation might be expected because of peer pressures or fear of gaining the disapproval of teachers (for example)).

Unless there's something in the majority today that suggests that those considerations should be ignored, I'm personally not terribly concerned with a drift toward organized school prayer.

Kennedy states there is no coercion at all.


"The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition," Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "and does not coerce participation by nonadherents."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/politics/scotus-new-york-public-prayer/?c=&page=1

if a simple prayer by the speaker is not indicative of coercion, then age is basically irrelevant and prayer in public school is going to make a comeback, imo.

[Spurminator]

if a simple prayer by the speaker is not indicative of coercion, then age is basically irrelevant and prayer in public school is going to make a comeback, imo.

Possible difference would be that in a classroom setting, children would be coerced to behave/keep quiet during the prayer, etc., and that would be basically the same as coercing them to listen/pray.

Also, children are seen as more prone to coercion, legally speaking.

[Blake]

Ah, check this out:


Public school teachers in Alabama would be required to begin each day by reading opening prayers that were given in Congress under a bill proposed by a Republican lawmaker.The bill would set aside 15 minutes at the start of each school day to study the procedures of Congress, and give a verbatim reading of a congressional opening prayer, The Anniston Star reported.......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/bill-seeks-to-let-alabama-teacher-read-prayers/

[TeyshaBlue]

Ah, check this out:

From the comment section. ""The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-8"

Interesting quote from Jefferson.



I"ll fall in with you, Blake. I'm not behind prayers in public schools. Seems like to me, prayer is not, in and of itself, beholden to a structural setting. A person is free to pray whenever they deem appropriate. Those that wish to pray do not need a time set aside for that.

[Blake]

I"ll fall in with you, Blake. I'm not behind prayers in public schools. Seems like to me, prayer is not, in and of itself, beholden to a structural setting. A person is free to pray whenever they deem appropriate. Those that wish to pray do not need a time set aside for that.

I'm against prayer in any public setting that is set up by tax dollars in which the speaker basically has a captive audience.

i.e. government meetings and public school classrooms

[TeyshaBlue]

The same situational logic would apply to prayer anywhere. I dont see the need for structure to facilitate prayer.

[Wild Cobra]

Christian theocratic supremacists go nuts!

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/another-blow-separation-church-and-state-supreme-court-rules-town-can-begin?akid=11776.187590.EGTpo7&rd=1&src=newsletter989173&t=5

America gets more fucked every time The Five vote.
Why?

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state."

lease show me where is the constitution that applies.

Have you ever read the first amendment?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shall make no law. under freedom of speech, this means no law shall be made prohibiting religion as well.

[pgardn]

Why?

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state."

lease show me where is the constitution that applies.

Have you ever read the first amendment?



Shall make no law. under freedom of speech, this means no law shall be made prohibiting religion as well.

You think the idea must reside in the constitution to apply?

So segregation of races is fine because the constitution does not explicitly define this question?

[The Reckoning]

we had moments of silence tbh

[pgardn]

we had moments of silence tbh

We still do in Texas.

[pgardn]

If meetings can begin with prayers in theses structured settings just bog em down with prayers from Hindus to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Jesus just get to work, this meeting will last into eternity, Amen.

[Blake]

Why?

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state."

lease show me where is the constitution that applies.

Have you ever read the first amendment?



Shall make no law. under freedom of speech, this means no law shall be made prohibiting religion as well.

Congress starting session with a Judeo-Christian prayer is very close to establishing a religion if it's not.

In any case, it can be offensive to non-Jew/Christians. It's definitively un-American, tbh.

[Blake]

If meetings can begin with prayers in theses structured settings just bog em down with prayers from Hindus to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Jesus just get to work, this meeting will last into eternity, Amen.

Need an atheist prayer

[TeyshaBlue]

Pray for steak.

[Blake]

Pray for steak.

Holy cow

Rimshot.

[Wild Cobra]

You think the idea must reside in the constitution to apply?

No, I'm saying the constitution specifically says the government may not make such laws.



So segregation of races is fine because the constitution does not explicitly define this question?
That's why we had the 13th and 14th amendments.

[TeyshaBlue]

Holy cow

Rimshot.
:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

No, I'm saying the constitution specifically says the government may not make such laws.

Nobody's making laws prohibiting religion.

[pgardn]

No, I'm saying the constitution specifically says the government may not make such laws.


That's why we had the 13th and 14th amendments.

Yes so what?
You brought the constitution into it.

The 1st amendment could be interpreted in different ways. That's ultimately why these things are argued over. You imply the constitution makes this case clear and it does no such thing.

[boutons_deux]

This whole prayer bullshit is nothing but Pharisiacal "look at me and how religious I am, plus Christ told me to kick all y'all's non-Christian asses".

WTF good, or difference, does an opening prayer make to a classroom or govt meeting? Totally gratuitous religion-izing bullshit.

[pgardn]

This whole prayer bullshit is nothing but Pharisiacal "look at me and how religious I am, plus Christ told me to kick all y'all's non-Christian asses".

WTF good, or difference, does an opening prayer make to a classroom or govt meeting? Totally gratuitous religion-izing bullshit.

What about the pledge?

[boutons_deux]

What about the pledge?

fuck the Pledge, too, esp the fake "Under God" modification. :lol

[pgardn]

fuck the Pledge, too, esp the fake "Under God" modification. :lol

So just a good wrap with the gavel and get things started.

I always thought a good monotonous chant was the right way to settle the masses for business.

[Blake]

So just a good wrap with the gavel and get things started.

I always thought a good monotonous chant was the right way to settle the masses for business.

saying "let's get things started" works just fine

[boutons_deux]

fuck the Pledge, too, esp the fake "Under God" modification. :lol

And y'all Super Patriots can stick Red-Glaring Rockets up your asses and give up on the bloody, war-minded National Anthem and the accompanying multi-branch, military-glorifying color guard. :lol

It's ALL bullshit and self-stroking myths.

[boutons_deux]

Why?

Shall make no law. under freedom of speech, this means no law shall be made prohibiting religion as well.

who's prohibiting religion?

the FFs were extremely aware of the ancient, corrupt, toxic power amalgam of Church + State in Europe, want to preclude, FIRST! amendment, any such horror in USA.

[FromWayDowntown]

boutons undoubtedly enjoyed the hell out of Super Patriot, uber conservative local radio talking head Joe Pags turning the National Anthem into some jazzy/bluesy tune before Game 7 of the Spurs-Mavericks' series.

I doubt that guy (Pags) has ever taken anyone to task for not correctly honoring the flag or the anthem.

[Winehole23]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-supervisor-ready-to-strike-prayer-policy-after-supreme/article_95c8b212-d4a5-11e3-81c0-0017a43b2370.html

[boutons_deux]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-supervisor-ready-to-strike-prayer-policy-after-supreme/article_95c8b212-d4a5-11e3-81c0-0017a43b2370.html

"When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not."

iow, "My Fairy Tales are better than Your Fairy Tales".

Thanks, SCOTUS FIVE! Fucking up the country with every decision

and SCOTUS FIVE lets NDAA continue to lock up Americans forever, no access to lawyers, no trial.

VRWC SCOTUS is pushing the Constitution aside, we are now post-Constitutional, exactly as the VRWC always intended.

[Blake]

Lol

Scotus 5 sounds like a navy seal unit or something