Christian theocratic supremacists go nuts!
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...tter989173&t=5
America gets more ed every time The Five vote.
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.
I hope somebody keeps score of how many govt meetings open with Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc prayers.
ty ty 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 cons utionality 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.
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."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/politi...yer/?c=&page=1
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.
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...-read-prayers/
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.
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
The same situational logic would apply to prayer anywhere. I dont see the need for structure to facilitate prayer.
Why?
There is no such thing as "separation of church and state."
lease show me where is the cons ution 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 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 pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
You think the idea must reside in the cons ution to apply?
So segregation of races is fine because the cons ution does not explicitly define this question?
Last edited by pgardn; 05-05-2014 at 07:14 PM.
we had moments of silence tbh
We still do in Texas.
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.
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.
Need an atheist prayer
Pray for steak.
Holy cow
Rimshot.
No, I'm saying the cons ution specifically says the government may not make such laws.
That's why we had the 13th and 14th amendments.
Nobody's making laws prohibiting religion.
Yes so what?
You brought the cons ution into it.
The 1st amendment could be interpreted in different ways. That's ultimately why these things are argued over. You imply the cons ution makes this case clear and it does no such thing.
This whole prayer bull 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 bull .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
