Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
112 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: U.S. Supreme Court endorses prayers before government meetings rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yes, but it has been wrong in all those cases also. It's a cop-out decision. We need the tea party to get on these lazy-ass judges who don't want to enforce the Constitution.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
If this doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I don't know what does.

It's amazing how the Supreme Court seems to be getting everything wrong these days. At this point, I fully expect them to rule that warrentless cellphone searches are legal.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.


It would be better if they had read the Constitution.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
ChickenSedan wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.


It would be better if they had read the Constitution.


Yes, I'm sure that never came up in law school. I'm fine with disagreeing with the line of cases, but the astonishment is just....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Shushnik wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.


It would be better if they had read the Constitution.


Shushnik - 1
Chicken - 0


Mine was snappier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
she2 wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.


It would be better if they had read the Constitution.


Yes, I'm sure that never came up in law school. I'm fine with disagreeing with the line of cases, but the astonishment is just....


I suppose the Catholic angle makes for some interesting parallels. Relying more heavily on former cases instead of the Constitution is akin to the Catholic Church leaning so heavily on it's tradition as opposed to just the source material.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Shushnik wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Hasn't that been the justification in a whole line of cases? Like having In God We Trust on money?



Yup. And it continues to be stupid.


So I don't get why sfox is so astonished. Astonishing that the court makes a decision in accord with a whole line of cases. Astounding. It's like they actually went to law school.


It would be better if they had read the Constitution.


Shushnik - 1
Chicken - 0


Mine was snappier.


Then why was it slower?


I'm using my phone and I had to go back and capitalize the "C".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems like they made the correct call to me.
11 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Shushnik wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems like they made the correct call to me.


It does not seem like they made the correct call to me.


Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

I thought I'd save us a little time with this scintillating debate.
20 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Supreme Court full of ideologues who vote their prejudices. News at 11.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems like they made the correct call to me.


It does not seem like they made the correct call to me.


Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

I thought I'd save us a little time with this scintillating debate.


Not nearly enough iterations.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems like they made the correct call to me.


It does not seem like they made the correct call to me.


Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

I thought I'd save us a little time with this scintillating debate.


Who pissed in your Wheaties?


Wait, someone had to have pissed in my Wheaties to snark in RSP? Alert the media.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The case isn't about whether legislatures can start their proceedings with prayer or whether local municipalities can have prayers before meetings - all nine Justices agree that they can. No, SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision held that a local government in a town with residents from many faiths can legitimately invite only Christian leaders to lead sectarian prayers without bothering to invite leaders from other faiths. How does that not violate the establishment clause?

Read the opinions (5 of them!) here. Justice Kagan's dissent is especially good, and discusses how the court goes beyond what it has previously allowed. She also talks about how someone of a minority religion might be affected.

Here is the crux of her dissent:
Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
But Greece could not do what it did: infuse a participatory government body with one (and only one) faith, so that month in and month out, the citizens appearing before it become partly defined by their creed—as those who share, and those who do not, the community’s major-ity religious belief. In this country, when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans (or here, as Grecians). That is what it means to be an equal citizen, irrespective of religion. And that is what the Town of Greece precluded by so identifying itself with a single faith.


EDITS: fixed some typos
27 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Elfbane wrote:
The case isn't about whether legislatures can start their proceedings with prayer or whether local municipalities can have prayers before meetings - all nine Justices agree that they can. No, SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision held that a local government with residents from many faiths can legitimately invite only Christian leaders to lead sectarian prayers without bothering to invite leaders from other faiths. How does that not violate the establishment clause?

Read the opinions (5 of them!) here. Justice Kagan's dissent is especially good, and discusses how the course goes beyond what it has previously allowed. She also talks about how someone of a minority religion might be affected.

Here is the crux of her dissent:
Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
But Greece could not do what it did: infuse a participatory government body with one (and only one) faith, so that month in and month out, the citizens appearing before it become partly defined by their creed—as those who share, and those who do not, the community’s major-ity religious belief. In this country, when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans (or here, as Grecians). That is what it means to be an equal citizen, irrespective of religion. And that is what the Town of Greece precluded by so identifying itself with a single faith.


Ahhh, and now we get to the crux of it. Thanks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
she2 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems like they made the correct call to me.


It does not seem like they made the correct call to me.


Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

I thought I'd save us a little time with this scintillating debate.


Who pissed in your Wheaties?

I did; didn't you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
she2 wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
The case isn't about whether legislatures can start their proceedings with prayer or whether local municipalities can have prayers before meetings - all nine Justices agree that they can. No, SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision held that a local government with residents from many faiths can legitimately invite only Christian leaders to lead sectarian prayers without bothering to invite leaders from other faiths. How does that not violate the establishment clause?

Read the opinions (5 of them!) here. Justice Kagan's dissent is especially good, and discusses how the course goes beyond what it has previously allowed. She also talks about how someone of a minority religion might be affected.

Here is the crux of her dissent:
Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
But Greece could not do what it did: infuse a participatory government body with one (and only one) faith, so that month in and month out, the citizens appearing before it become partly defined by their creed—as those who share, and those who do not, the community’s major-ity religious belief. In this country, when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans (or here, as Grecians). That is what it means to be an equal citizen, irrespective of religion. And that is what the Town of Greece precluded by so identifying itself with a single faith.


Ahhh, and now we get to the crux of it. Thanks.

But that's the point. It shouldn't ALWAYS be the crux. Sometimes a star, sometimes a crescent and a star, etc.
6 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
If this doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I don't know what does.


You don't know what does.


Please enlighten me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
If this doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I don't know what does.


You don't know what does.


Please enlighten me.


The First Amendment limits the Federal government's ability to establish a national religion. It doesn't prohibit cities or states from doing that. This is a municipality which isn't Washington DC. It's not a Federal issue.

Are you posting from the 1930's?

Hey, watch out for that Adolf Hitler, he's a bad egg.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
bjlillo wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
If this doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I don't know what does.


You don't know what does.


Please enlighten me.


The First Amendment limits the Federal government's ability to establish a national religion. It doesn't prohibit cities or states from doing that. This is a municipality which isn't Washington DC. It's not a Federal issue.


But the Fourteenth Amendment extends that to the states.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
ChickenSedan wrote:
If this doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I don't know what does.


You don't know what does.


Please enlighten me.


The First Amendment limits the Federal government's ability to establish a national religion. It doesn't prohibit cities or states from doing that. This is a municipality which isn't Washington DC. It's not a Federal issue.


You're only about 67 years too late to make that argument, BJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me.


"content of the prayer is not of concern to judges," provided "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

Quote:
Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd.


The Constitution has to mean the same thing one day to the next (unless amended) in the same way that a meter has to equal a meter one day to the next. Otherwise, terms become meaningless.

Quote:
The First Amendment limits the Federal government's ability to establish a national religion. It doesn't prohibit cities or states from doing that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Connecticut -- Congregational, until 1818
Georgia -- Church of England, until 1789
Maryland -- Church of England, until 1776
Massachusetts -- Congregational, until 1833
New Hampshire -- Congregational, until 1790
South Carolina -- Church of England, until 1790
Virginia -- Church of England, until 1786
pre-US Hawaii -- Church of Hawaii, 1862-1893

The four colonies never have an established church -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware Colony, Rhode Island.

Apparently, two of the old state constitutions to provide a right to bear arms were Delaware (originally a non-British colony without lots of common law) and Pennsylvania (a Quaker colony nervous amount losing its rights).

I guess the lack of a state church invites people of diverse views, causing them to want to be protected.

Which is worse? A state church or the right to bear arms?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lurch Adams
msg tools
sfox wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-praye...

The justification behind this decision is so wrong it is astonishing to me. Saying it is ok because we've always done it that way is flat out absurd. The same justification could be used to defend banning of same sex marriage or making slavery legal. Either it is ok for the government to endorse religion or it is not.

A prayer held in public prior to starting a government meeting is certainly an endorsement of a religion. If they want to do something to at the start of the meeting how about having all the members repeat an oath that it is their duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.


Anybody know an app that can convert "Fortunate Son" into Gregorian Chant?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.