Supremes and political prayer + Breyer an atheist?

[arcadia]

A bit surprised that there has been no posting here about the Supreme Court case argued today concerning prayer at the beginning of legislative sessions. The NYT has excellent coverage of the argument and at the very end mentions an exchange between Justices Scalia and Breyer which is suceptible to the interpretation that Breyer has no deity.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/nyregion/supreme-court-justices-consider-new-york-towns-prayer-practice.html

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.

But Justice Breyer suggested he might have one, though he did not give it. "Perhaps he’s asking me that question,” he said of his colleague, “and I can answer it later.”

Anyway, it would be nice if those folks decided to lance the boil and deem all official religious activities (or even just prayer) in legislative fora unconstitutional.

[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.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, it sounded like Scalia was arguing against prayer being all inclusive. I was confused.

[Toto]

The Supremes have a dilemma. There is no honest way to justify including a prayer in a governmental function if you believe in church state separation, and they all know it. But there are two problems: 1. They have the precedent of Marsh v. Chambers, which says that a sufficiently vague prayer to an unspecified higher power is constitutional, and 2. They know that if they rule against prayer, the US Marshalls will not be able to protect them from the wrath of Congressmen mobbed on their steps.

It really is a dilemma, and I feel for them.

:boohoo:

Scalia and Thomas do not have this dilemma, because they do not believe in church state separation. They think it's just fine if the government endorses Christianity and forces everyone to listen to its prayers, as long as people are not jailed or tortured for refusing to believe.

But for the others - this is a case of "ceremonial Deism." Allowing a minister of the gospel a few minutes of air time is not an important enough issue to stand up to Congress. Prayer is an empty ritual. Most of the believers who support it don't actually believe most of what they hear, and they probably sleep through the sermons when they go to church.

In the greater picture of church state violations, having a city council open with a prayer is a minor annoyance. It doesn't even begin to compare to the problems of the money that churches suck out of the US Treasury or active discrimination against atheists in jobs and social life. So why should the court waste its political capital to rule against it?

I have observed a number of courts deal with this issue by either deciding that there is no standing to challenge the ceremonial Deism, or by issuing an opinion that seems to have been deliberately written to not make sense. I don't see how either of these options is available to the Supreme Court in this case.

I would not be surprised, however, if they dodge the issue, or write 6 separate opinions.

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is worse. The whole reason these prayers exist is to express how Christian our country really is. But when it goes to court, that foundational reason for the prayer in the first place evaporates and they claim it is vague meaningless bullshit. It is so unauthentic!

[Toto]

Someone agrees with me.

Prediction

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the Supreme Court will decide Town of Greece v. Galloway by declaring that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to challenge the Greece town council’s opening prayers. The Rochester suburb will thus be free to continue to begin its meetings with whatever prayers it likes.

There is widespread agreement that the court will be very reluctant to declare prayers opening such meetings as unconstitutional establishments of religion — and I think the conventional wisdom is right. Back in 2004, the justices agreed to decide Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, a case challenging the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and then dismissed it on the grounds that plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked the standing to bring it in the first place. Some constitutional determinations are just not worth the societal commotion.

...

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

[Oresta]

[quote=""Jimmy Higgins""]It is worse. The whole reason these prayers exist is to express how Christian our country really is. But when it goes to court, that foundational reason for the prayer in the first place evaporates and they claim it is vague meaningless bullshit. It is so unauthentic![/quote]

I always regarded those opening prayers as akin to raising a leg and pissing on the session, meaning: "This is our territory, and don't anyone forget that."

[braces_for_impact]

My bet is that they say a watered down version is OK for Greece, and will only apply their verdict to that scope. Kick that can on down the road.

[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:

[joedad]

[quote=""Toto""]Someone agrees with me.

Prediction

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the Supreme Court will decide Town of Greece v. Galloway by declaring that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to challenge the Greece town council’s opening prayers. The Rochester suburb will thus be free to continue to begin its meetings with whatever prayers it likes.

There is widespread agreement that the court will be very reluctant to declare prayers opening such meetings as unconstitutional establishments of religion — and I think the conventional wisdom is right. Back in 2004, the justices agreed to decide Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, a case challenging the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and then dismissed it on the grounds that plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked the standing to bring it in the first place. Some constitutional determinations are just not worth the societal commotion.

...

I bet the Supreme Court clerks are wracking their brains to come up with an intellectual respectable argument for avoiding this case.[/QUOTE]They can always go down the path of saying a practice is traditional, kind of giving it legal grandfather status.