Supreme Court: Prayer at council meetings constitutional

[Teallaura]

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of local officials to open town council meetings with prayer, ruling that these do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity.
The court said in 5-4 decision Monday that the content of the prayers is not critical as long as officials make a good-faith effort at inclusion

. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ncil-meetings/

[seer]

Yes, I have been reading the Kennedy opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-696_4f57.pdf

[Teallaura]

Cool! Thanks!

[Cow Poke]

This sounds like SANITY with regard to the First Amendment's "prohibition clause". I haven't had an opportunity yet to review this in detail, but it sounds like the court is recognizing that the government would be "prohibiting the free exercise" if they intervened.

Interesting.

[Spartacus]

Justice Thomas cited my Constitutional Studies professor

[seer]

Justice Thomas cited my Constitutional Studies professor

There will be no living with you now!

[DesertBerean]

When we were little, one of my brothers created a word to express mixed feelings...."YayBoo". Seems appropriate here. YAY that the SCOTUS ruled in favor even though it was right down the middle...and BOO on the inclusiveness conditions even though I realize it does sorta honor the anti establishment concept.

[seer]

In case some of you did not live through the 50s and early 60s... When I was a kid, often (but not always, since it was the teacher's discretion), after we did the pledge the teacher would lead us in the Lord's Prayer, and often read a Psalm. And in my town only one gas station, one convenience store and one movie house was allowed to open on Sunday - all other businesses were closed because it was the "Lord's Day."

[Sparko]

Hasn't congress been opened with a prayer ever since the beginning?

[Spartacus]

Hasn't congress been opened with a prayer ever since the beginning?

Yes. Marsh v Chambers discussed that, IIRC, but I don't recall exactly how the majority managed to weasel its way out of the obvious.

[Teallaura]

There will be no living with you now!

How is that any different from before?

[Spartacus]

How is that any different from before?

[Psychic Missile]

Interesting. It seems to be another case of allowing for variety vs ending a practice, like with ten commandment monuments. The case had nothing to do with whether the town should end the practice of prayer before meetings. It had to do with the content of those prayers. The dissent is that the town didn't put forth due diligence in an effort to be inclusive. I've gotta say, after reading page 17 of Kagan's opinion where she gives an example of a Muslim attending a town meeting, and Breyer's example of House of Representatives guidelines, I have to side with the dissenters, and think a victory would be better won if a case was brought asking for an end to the practice.

[Carrikature]

Yes. Marsh v Chambers discussed that, IIRC, but I don't recall exactly how the majority managed to weasel its way out of the obvious.

From http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_23

Source: Marsh v. Chambers

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court upheld the chaplaincy practice. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger abandoned the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had been the touchstone for cases involving the Establishment Clause. In its place, Burger rested the Court's opinion on historical custom. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

© Copyright Original Source

Since the people who wrote the thing were ok with it, it must not have been a violation.

[Thoughtful Monk]

When we were little, one of my brothers created a word to express mixed feelings...."YayBoo". Seems appropriate here. YAY that the SCOTUS ruled in favor even though it was right down the middle...and BOO on the inclusiveness conditions even though I realize it does sorta honor the anti establishment concept.

I'm sort of with you on the YAY-BOO for the same reasons.

On the other hand, I confess part of my wishes the town had lost. Now the whole America was founded as a Christian nation starts up again instead Christians admitting America has abandoned God and treating the nation like the pagan mission field it has become.