Supremes and political prayer + Breyer an atheist?

[Shadowy Man]

[quote=""arcadia""]
Justice Scalia wondered where a ruling from the court would leave nonbelievers. “What is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious?” he asked Mr. Hungar, who had no answer.
[/quote]

Um... isn't that the point?? That there is no equivalent, thus anyone who isn't a believer is being shut out? :huh:

Hungar really dropped the ball on this one. The ball hit him in the hands but he was looking away.

[doghouse]

"Prayer at a government function is OK because we've always allowed prayer."

"But the prayer can't specify one particular religion and exclude others."

"So how can you come up with a prayer that doesn't exclude at least one group, for example atheists?"

"Yeah, atheists are obviously out."

"… and how are you going to ensure a particular prayer is allowed without having the government censure prayer?"

"Yeah, we can't have that."

"So the only logical conclusion is to not allow prayer at all … but we can't' do that."

"Why not?"

"Because we've always allowed prayer."

[OLDMAN]

[quote=""arcadia""]Never mind. Really not an important story considering all the busy atheistic-martyrization going on. In this Church State Separation forum, the Supreme Court working on a prayer in legislative chambers case is just irrelevant piffle.[/quote]
You have a segment of your society that is (for a lack of a better phrase) coming out of the closet, and demanding equal rights. How is that any different from all the other issues confronting the status quote.

[Toto]

[quote=""joedad""]

Someone agrees with me.

Prediction



I bet the Supreme Court clerks are wracking their brains to come up with an intellectual respectable argument for avoiding this case.

They can always go down the path of saying a practice is traditional, kind of giving it legal grandfather status.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but that is not an intellectually responsible argument. That's why the theocrats keep trying to phrase this as "honoring tradition." That's the basis of "ceremonial Deism" - which you would think Christians would object to as trivializing their beliefs.

Here's Marci Hamilton:

There Is Really Only One Issue in Town of Greece v. Galloway

.... The more I think about this case, though, the more I come to the conclusion that it turns on a single factual question: Can there be, in 21st Century America, such a thing as a “nonsectarian” prayer? The short answer is, “No way.”

The Supreme Court oral argument in the case was riddled with nonsense, as the lawyer for the town tried to defend the practice of reciting the largely Christian prayers, and, inexplicably, the lawyer for the two women, one of whom is an atheist, who had brought the case argued that such prayers are fine so long as they are “nonsectarian.”

Wouldn’t you expect an atheist to argue that such prayers were unconstitutional, period? Was their only objection to the mention of “Jesus Christ?” It appeared that their lawyer, Professor Douglas Laycock, was attempting to thread the needle between existing case law, like Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld “nonsectarian” prayers in state legislatures and by extension, Congress. This approach was lawyerly to be sure, but shortsighted. His clients deserved more vision and passion from their advocates.

The idea of “nonsectarian” prayer has crashed onto the shoals of our country’s religious diversity, and his clients would have been far better served if he had focused on the facts of American society, rather than what is now indefensible case law. ...

Check the link for more.

[joedad]

The Supremes don't really have to deal with the diversity of religious beliefs in the U.S. They are insulated regardless their decision. They will obviously decide that a little church/state separation is a good thing but a lot of church state separation is a bad thing, no different than the history of the slavery issue.

When black american troops eventually came into contact with their white counterparts a couple generations ago they were still denied equal treatment. I remember reading of an incident where a black flyer was rescued and while on ship was told he could not get a haircut because he was black. Luckily the ship's captain wasn't a Scalia and so read the riot act to the white sailor who refused to cut his hair. This is why things changed, not because of any decisions the Supremes made.

Scalia and his ilk are rusted out one-way signs that will just take some time to crumble away. Short of that a John Brown type incident where people die because they weren't a particular religion might certainly help things along.

ETA: Good link!

[arkirk]

Our flawed constitution prohibited Congress from passing any laws establishing a state religion. That was only aimed at congress. The president and the supreme court have stepped in handily often to support the religios, usually giving them what they want. I am sure that fundamentalists say "Thank God for those pillars of righteousness on the supreme court....Scalia and Thomas." We simply need a 21st Century Consititution that outlaws state religion in all forms...and leaves no room for slavery and indentured servitude.

[Herrick]

[quote=""thentian""]Whenever I read about all the public praying in America I can't help thinking "hypocrites". And though I have been an atheist for thirty years now, Matt 6, 5-6 comes to mind:

5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.…

Would it be unkind to say that these people aren't christians, but pharisees? :d evil1:[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many theists take those prayers seriously. Are they really attempting to talk to their god or is it just a mindless routine for them, like saying the pledge of allegiance every day in school? Forget the kids because we know they don't give a shit, but how many teachers (adults who can comprehend what those words mean) are seriously pledging allegiance to their country when they say the pledge every day? Mindless routine. Yet they'll fight tooth & nail to keep those government-sponsored Christian prayers.

[arcadia]

[quote=""Herrick""]
Would it be unkind to say that these people aren't christians, but pharisees? :d evil1:

I wonder how many theists take those prayers seriously. Are they really attempting to talk to their god or is it just a mindless routine for them, like saying the pledge of allegiance every day in school? Forget the kids because we know they don't give a shit, but how many teachers (adults who can comprehend what those words mean) are seriously pledging allegiance to their country when they say the pledge every day? Mindless routine. Yet they'll fight tooth & nail to keep those government-sponsored Christian prayers.[/quote]

As noted, the scriptural justification is weak. But a rather unholy alliance of preachers, politicians and some truly nutty or politically motivated believers have managed to convince enough people that having the little darlings watch or perform prayer in school is going to counteract the decline or western civilization. But what's really going on is that the preachers are seeking future contributors, the politicians are seeking heroic status and the see prayer as only the first step toward required self-flagellation by all kids during recess.