Supreme Coutrt allows public prayer

[dragon]

Not where I stand on the matter as long as they don't force it someone I guess it's all right

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court gave limited approval on Monday to public prayers at a New York town's board meetings, citing the country's history of religious acknowledgment in the legislature.

The 5-4 ruling came in yet another contentious case over the intersection of faith and the civic arena. It was confined to the specific circumstances and offered few bright-line rules on how other communities should offer civic prayers without violating the Constitution.

Two local women sued officials in Greece, New York, objecting to invocations at monthly public sessions on government property. The invocations, according to the plaintiffs, have been overwhelmingly Christian in nature over the years.

"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."

Just moments before the opinion was announced from the bench, the high court began its public session as it has for decades: with the marshal invoking a traditional statement that ends, "God save the United States and this honorable court." The several hundred people in attendance, along with the justices, stood for the brief ceremony.

The conservative majority offered varying interpretations of when such "ceremonial" prayers would be permissible. Kennedy, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, focused on the specifics of the Greece case and did not offer a broad expansion of legislative prayer.

Fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia went further, suggesting that even any "subtle pressure" that local citizens might feel would not be enough to ban such prayers.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said, "When the citizens of this country approach their government, they do so only as Americans, not as members of one faith or another. And that means that even in a partly legislative body, they should not confront government-sponsored worship that divides them along religious lines."

'It's just not appropriate'

The town of about 94,000 residents outside Rochester began allowing prayers to start its meetings in 1999, after years of having a "moment of silence."

Co-plaintiffs Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway challenged the revised policy, saying officials repeatedly ignored their requests to modify or eliminate the practice, or at least make it more inclusive.

"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens told CNN from her home. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."

The town government counters that after concerns from the two women and others, it sought diverse voices, including a Wiccan priestess, to offer invocations. Officials say they do not review the content of the remarks, nor censor any language.

"The faith of the prayer giver does not matter at all," said John Auberger, Greece's board supervisor, who began the practice shortly after taking office. "We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings."

A federal appeals court in New York found the board's policy to be a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which forbids any government "endorsement" of religion. Those judges said it had the effect of "affiliating the town with Christianity."

Congress and state legislatures regularly open their sessions with a prayer. The question in part before the court is whether local government bodies are different, in that there might be more active involvement with local residents, who may want to personally petition the town in zoning, tax and other matters.

Kagan suggested the court's ruling could lead to sectarian prayers at such government venues as trials, polling places, and naturalization ceremonies.

But Alito expressed concern "some readers will take these hypotheticals as a warning that this is where today's decision leads -- to a country in which religious minorities are denied the equal benefits of citizenship."

"Nothing could be further from the truth," added Alito. "All that the court does today is to allow a town to follow a practice that we have previously held is permissible for Congress and state legislatures."

Widely varying interpretations

Nearly 120 members of Congress, mostly Republicans, along with 18 state attorneys general, filed supporting legal briefs backing the city. The Obama administration did the same.

The high court has generally taken a case-by-case approach on determining just when the state intrudes unconstitutionally into religion, while generally allowing faith to be acknowledged in a limited basis in a public forum.

"In God We Trust" remains on currency; the Pledge of Allegiance and oaths of office mention a creator; and menorah and crèche displays are permitted in local parks.

But the justices, in their widely varying interpretations of this case, acknowledged the tricky line they must walk -- politically, socially, legally-- when deciding Establishment Clause appeals. It was Kennedy's views that ultimately controlled.

"By inviting ministers to serve as chaplain for the month, and welcoming them to the front of the room alongside civic leaders, the town is acknowledging the central place that religion, and religious institutions, hold in the lives of those present," he said. "Indeed, some congregations are not simply spiritual homes for town residents but also the provider of social services for citizens regardless of their beliefs."

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the town in court, agreed.

"The Supreme Court has again affirmed that Americans are free to pray," said the group's senior counsel David Cortman. "In America, we tolerate a diversity of opinions and beliefs; we don't silence people or try to separate what they say from what they believe."

But the ACLU said it was disappointed. "Official religious favoritism should be off-limits under the Constitution," said the group's Daniel Mach. "Town-sponsored sectarian prayer violates the basic rule requiring the government to stay neutral on matters of faith."

The case of Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway (12-696).

link

[Borgholio]

Yeah this is one of those tricky things. On one hand, it may seem like endorsement of Christianity. On the other hand, they are not FORCING people to pray if they don't want to, and there are no negative consequences for choosing not to pray or partake in the ceremony. I'm kinda on the fence about this.

[Kitsune]

We have a pretty religious and partisan supreme court at the moment. . . .I expect this to be revisited sometime in the near future.

[TheHammer]

The town government counters that after concerns from the two women and others, it sought diverse voices, including a Wiccan priestess, to offer invocations. Officials say they do not review the content of the remarks, nor censor any language.

"The faith of the prayer giver does not matter at all," said John Auberger, Greece's board supervisor, who began the practice shortly after taking office. "We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings."

Presuming that the above is true, it doesn't sound like a particular endorsement or favoritism of any particular religion to me.

[Ahriman238]

Yeah this is one of those tricky things. On one hand, it may seem like endorsement of Christianity. On the other hand, they are not FORCING people to pray if they don't want to, and there are no negative consequences for choosing not to pray or partake in the ceremony. I'm kinda on the fence about this.

I'm not.

Why shouldn't people be free to publicly express their religion, as long as they're not being assholes or penalizing others for not joining in?

[Gandalf]

Does this ruling mean that areas with a Muslim majority can open with a prayer too?

If a place is more evenly split, do they get two prayers?

[Borgholio]

Why shouldn't people be free to publicly express their religion, as long as they're not being assholes or penalizing others for not joining in?

PEOPLE should be free. GOVERNMENT should not. If you're talking about an informal town hall meeting or a neighborhood watch or something like that sure, pray all you want. But when an official government representative at an official government function invokes religion as part of the official ceremony...that potentially sends the wrong message. Anything government related should be secular.

[Batman]

Why shouldn't people be free to publicly express their religion, as long as they're not being assholes or penalizing others for not joining in?

I think that last sentence is what people are worried about. Yes, as long as they allow everybody to pray to whom or whatever they want-or just opt out completely and use the time to check their phone messages, with no negative consequences, sure, why not. The probability of there not being negative consequences for the people praying to another deity/pantheon/demon/tFSM/not at all, especially in a predominantly christian town that's so determined to be allowed to pray during town meetings, I expect to be pretty damned low.

[Mr. Coffee]

Yeah this is one of those tricky things. On one hand, it may seem like endorsement of Christianity. On the other hand, they are not FORCING people to pray if they don't want to, and there are no negative consequences for choosing not to pray or partake in the ceremony. I'm kinda on the fence about this.

How is it an expression of Christianity? Just beause the town in the ase meant there expression as such doesn't mean the same ruling doesn't apply to all religions. No one is being coherced, the town isn't forcing anyone to accept Jesus, the city council is just engaging in religious expression, and if the citizens wish to participate they may and if they choose not to no one is condemning them for it either.

Not seeing anything here to get excited about.

[SirNitram]

So I can start winter sessions by lighting a bonfire and sacrificing the elected official? Blood and fire, the OLD TIME religion!

[TimothyC]

Does this ruling mean that areas with a Muslim majority can open with a prayer too?

If a place is more evenly split, do they get two prayers?

ScotusBlog breaks down the requirements:

• First: Such prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings.
• Second: The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy.
• Third: The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain. The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves.
• Fourth: The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths.
• Fifth: In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” — that is, promote one faith as the true faith — and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
• Sixth: The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message.
• Seventh: Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults — thus raising the question whether the same outcome would apply if the audience were a group of children or youths, such as the Boy or Girl Scouts, appearing before a government agency or a government-sponsored group. (The Court did not abandon its view that, at public school graduations or at events sponsored by public schools, prayers are not allowed because they may tend to coerce young people in a religious way.)
• Eighth: A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances. In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith.

So I can start winter sessions by lighting a bonfire and sacrificing the elected official? Blood and fire, the OLD TIME religion!

Human Sacrifice was effectively banned in Reynolds v. United States (it was used as the main agreement against the concept that religious duty was a defense to a criminal indictment), so no, you can't do that.

[Borgholio]

How is it an expression of Christianity?

It's part of the opening ceremony of the meeting. Not one guy asking to pray, it's something that's legally required.

Note - I don't really care if it's part of the ceremony, I'm just saying I understand why some people would disagree with it. It could seem like government endorsement of religion which should not be permitted, but this is not the same thing as forcing people to pray.

[Mr. Coffee]

It's part of the opening ceremony of the meeting. Not one guy asking to pray, it's something that's legally required.

So some people gotta pray before they do everything (Seriously, I knew a guy once that prayed before doing everything. I can't confirm it, but I'm pretty sure the dude prayed before, during, and after taking a dump). They're not forcing anyone else to do so. It's about as meaningful as singing the Star Spangled Banner before a ball game.

Note - I don't really care if it's part of the ceremony, I'm just saying I understand why some people would disagree with it. It could seem like government endorsement of religion which should not be permitted, but this is not the same thing as forcing people to pray.

Is the government giving preferential treatment to Christians or demanding Christianity be made the official church of the land? Then it's not an endorsement.

[Borgholio]

Is the government giving preferential treatment to Christians or demanding Christianity be made the official church of the land? Then it's not an endorsement.

Point taken.

[SirNitram]

So I can start winter sessions by lighting a bonfire and sacrificing the elected official? Blood and fire, the OLD TIME religion!

Human Sacrifice was effectively banned in Reynolds v. United States (it was used as the main agreement against the concept that religious duty was a defense to a criminal indictment), so no, you can't do that.

Fine. Bloodletting, sex, and blessed booze. At least until they stop oppressing my religious beliefs!

[Channel72]

I can't confirm it, but I'm pretty sure the dude prayed before, during, and after taking a dump).

I do that all the time. "Lord... please bless this shit. May it be satisfying and complete."

[Mr. Coffee]

I can't confirm it, but I'm pretty sure the dude prayed before, during, and after taking a dump).

I do that all the time. "Lord... please bless this shit. May it be satisfying and complete."

Alternatively: "Dear Lord, I swear I'll never eat (insert ethnic food here) again!"

[TimothyC]

Fine. Bloodletting,

If it's consentual and doesn't represent a health risk to anyone around maybe.

sex,

Public decency statues might have something to say about this one

and blessed booze.

Public intoxication rules might be in the way - as might any rules against alcohol in city offices.

[SirNitram]

Fine. Bloodletting,

If it's consentual and doesn't represent a health risk to anyone around maybe.

sex,

Public decency statues might have something to say about this one

and blessed booze.

Public intoxication rules might be in the way - as might any rules against alcohol in city offices.

You say this like laws aren't discarded for 'religious' reasons all the time in this country.