Supreme Court will rule on prayer at government meetings

[sudo]

This is a biggie folks. It could reinforce or overturn Marsh....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/20/supreme-court-prayer-new-york-government-meeting/2151385/

sudo

[GoodGolly]

One can only hope!  I am sorry, "unambiguous and unbroken history" is not a good enough reason to allow this to continue. 

[sudo]

Yep GG,unambiguous and unbroken history of slavery too.... up until
the 13th amendment. In fact, as I sit here mulling all the social
wrongs that have been corrected most of them were historical and
unambiguous as well: women's sufferage, child labor, segregation,
discrimination based on whole host of issues etc...

sudo

On May 21, 1:30 pm, GoodGolly <ggmm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One can only hope!  I am sorry, "unambiguous and unbroken history" is not a
> good enough reason to allow this to continue.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:49:44 AM UTC-5, sudo wrote:
>
> > This is a biggie folks. It could reinforce or overturn Marsh....
>

> >http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/20/supreme-court-...
>
> > sudo

[Martin Atkins]

This debate will be a good one. With women suffrage, slavery, child labor, and other issues, there were direct injuries or restrictions on human rights. With prayers at the beginning of meetings, direct injures, human rights, or hardships will be more difficult to nail down. In addition, the 1st Amendament was a call for federal neutrality in religious matters, which is being applied to states and local governments (through various court cases).

As the constituents of state and local governments get increasingly more religiously diverse and non-religious, I bet the laws of state and local governments will continue to drift more and more toward the kind of religious neutrality practiced (or should be practiced) by the federal government.

[Robert]

The real kicker is the staggering hypocrisy of Christians in relation to
praying ostensibly. From Matthew 6:1-7, particularly verses 1, 5, and 6:

6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to
be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven.

2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the
hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised
by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when
you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand
is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees
in secret will reward you.

5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to
stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be
seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But
when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father
who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for
they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like
them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

And that is all that having a prayer in public meetings is about- making
sure everyone attending knows how Christian you are. If their higher law is
God's, then why ignore it? I've seen no apologist argument that can explain
away these verses. Then there's the 1st amendment...

--
--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express
the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members.
Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People
are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other
people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open,
honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this
forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and
paste the web address into your browser if necessary)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to
memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[sudo]

For those appealing the decision this isn't really about prayer and I think most of them know this. If that were so they would have absolutely no problem with Muslims invoking Allah, Hindus praying to Lord Vishnu or devotees of the dark side asking the Sith Lord for guidance before government assemblies. No, it is clearly an establishment of religion. One religion. Christianity. And I'm really really worried about this decision. John Roberts shocked and infuriated his backers on Obamacare. Could he turn into an Earl Warren who was appointed by a conservative Republican (Ike) but then turned into one of the most liberal justices ever? We need 5 votes....

sudo

memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

email to memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Robert]

Also, it does not matter if a variety of religions are permitted legislative prayer or not; it is the establishment of any religion.  Marsh v. Chambers (1983) initially concerned gov’t support/payment for chaplains to say prayers.  The court of appeals decided that the payment of a chaplain was not the only issue, but the prayer itself was a violation of establishment clause.

 

The Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1968), though, set a legal precedent.  The decision for a chaplain to say prayers prior to the ratification of the Constitution should be immaterial as it predates the legal precedent of the 1st amendment, regarless of “tradition”.  The test is below:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

A violation of any of the three tests makes it unconstitutional. Clearly, such legislative prayer, violates #1 and #2 of the Lemon Test.  Marsh and Lemon both support not having legislative prayers.  The Supreme Court has avoiding ruling on recent cases as they know these precedents do not support the positions of the conservative justices who dominate the Court.  As you pointed out, we can only hope Roberts does not cave in to his even more conservative colleagues.

memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.