In a blow to secularists and civil libertarians, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Greece v. Galloway to allow Christian prayers at a local council. The Court again left little clarity on the standard for future cases in what proved a highly fractured decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy tipped the balance in favor of the Town of Greece with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. However, his opinion was left in pieces by a series of concurring opinions. Scalia and Thomas specifically bolted over Part II-B of Kennedy’s opinion (except as to Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.) Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia in part. Even the dissenting justices divided with a Breyer opinion for himself and a dissent by Kagan that was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. In other words, an unholy mess.
The record in the case was viewed by many as highly suspicious in how the council almost exclusively used Christian ministers while professing to be open to any faith, including atheists. The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers under which a town employee would call the congregations listed in local directory. That itself allowed for an obvious bias but also the town only had Christian ministers. Even Kennedy admitted that “from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.”
The prayers often referenced Jesus or Biblical passages:
“Lord we ask you to send your spirit of upon all of us gathered here this evening to do your work for the benefit of all in our community. We ask you to bless our elected and appointed officials so they may deliberate with wisdom and act with courage. Bless the members of our community who come here to speak before the board so they may state their cause with honesty and humility. . . . Lord we ask you to bless us all, that everything we do here tonight will move you to welcome us one day into your kingdom as good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name of our brother Jesus. Amen.” Id., at 45a.
“Lord, God of all creation, we give you thanks and praise for your presence and action in the world. We look with anticipation to the celebration of Holy Week and Easter. It is in the solemn events of next week that we find the very heart and center of our Christian faith. We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality, and confidence from his resurrection at Easter. . . . We pray for peace in the world, an end to terrorism,violence, conflict, and war. We pray for stability, democracy, and good government in those countries in which our armed forces are now serving, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Praise and glory be yours, O Lord, now and forever more. Amen.”
Kennedy emphasized that the Court had long recognized a historical practice of prayers as not violating the establishment clause:
An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases. The Court found the prayers in Marsh consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because our history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786.
Kennedy found no evidence of coercion in the use of the prayers by the Town of Greece:
Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Kennedy made clear that secular values would not replace religious values in such public meetings as a constitutional mandate and refused to require “chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere . . . Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.”
This does not of course help those who do not believe in theism. I suppose, like Rome, when in Greece just learn to do as the Greeks do.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696. In my Supreme Court class, the students voted overwhelmingly to affirm by a vote of 11-1. The prediction was closer. Five of us thought that the Court would reverse the Second Circuit (which it did) and seven students thought the Court would affirm.
Here are the opinions.
Mike A.,
Excellent points.
123:
What is your understanding of natural law?
Be careful what you pray for, you just might get that and more. The law of unintended consequences is at play here.
I see where Arkansas’ ban on gay marriage has been overturned. I think I have that correct.
Thank you, Professor. I appreciate your consideration in this matter and I will endeavor to remain civil.
Chuck Stanley:
The biography I read was pretty straight about what happened and was actually a pretty fair read. It even talked about JFK using his connections to get him into the navy. But it also talked about his womanizing and other Kennedy short comings. Much of which has been verified by historians.
No calumney at all, you cannot damage a person’s reputation if you tell the truth.
Byron – If I remember correctly, it was JFK’s womanizing that got him the PT assignment. He had had a cushy Washington DC job as an admiral’s aide an then started bonking some officer’s wife. His punishment for being caught was PT boats in the Pacific.
After discussing the matter with RTC, I have lifted the suspension. We will continue to enforce the civility rule to delete comments or suspend commenters who refuse to comply with our repeated requests to avoid personal attacks. If you do not want to discuss the stories or sources of these postings, please stay off our comment section to allow others to engage in adult discussions.
Davis sez: “….on a personal level, we should develop a character which does not discriminate against someone based upon a religious association?”
******************************************
Short answer, it all depends.
Longer answer, if the religion (or its practitioners) in question mandates or promotes bigotry, hatefulness, or discrimination against any person or group because of sexual orientation, gender, race, color, creed, nationality or political party: Hell yes, I will call them out on it.
Chuck – so even though a person is devout in what they believe, you feel it is your God given duty to disabuse them of anything belief that you do not agree with? Personally, I like people believe what they want, it is not my job, God given or otherwise, to change their minds.
Chuck wrote: “… if the religion (or its practitioners) in question mandates or promotes bigotry, hatefulness, or discrimination against any person or group because of sexual orientation, gender, race, color, creed, nationality or political party: Hell yes, I will call them out on it.”
What if a political practitioner or legal practitioner mandates or promotes bigotry, hatefulness, or discrimination against any person or group because of their religion?
You ask a good question of Mike Appleton regarding the founder’s belief in the necessity of God in the development of a moral code. I look forward to his answer.
But your notions of natural law are far too facile.
davidm,
Both were political martyrs. And more people have been murdered and made to suffer in the name of Jesus…so far.
123 wrote: “Both were political martyrs.”
Jesus didn’t kill anyone because of his religious beliefs. Osama Bin Laden killed thousands. Yet you lump them together? I guess you think Adolf Hitler was a political martyr too. Talk about facile.
123
Boy. I bet we’d all like to know who YOU are!
Fine observations, too.
Paul,
Members of my family have been in broadcast journalism for over thirty years, and have won close to a half dozen Murrow Awards between them. Through them, I have personally met many journalists, producers, and media spokespersons. I am in no doubt that 7% is a wildly under-reported figure and that it probably accounts for those in the media, like Hannity, who can’t deny their affiliations.
The more pertinent question to ask members of the media would be, “Who likes receiving a paycheck?” Because control of the media concentrated in a small number of ownership groups, particularly in this country. These corporate owners have an entirely different agenda from the dissemination of truthful, factually based information on the issues that impact the health and welfare of the citizenry. They have ways of ensuring compliance with their agenda
Mike Appleton: “Efforts to rehabilitate Sen. McCarthy are as pointless as revisionist theories on the “War of Northern Aggression.”
And yet, you can go to the latest two threads on the Battle Flag of Confederate Northern Virginia and find all kinds of confederate apologists.
I am astounded at the extremeness of the so-called conservatives in here.
Schulte: “You also have to remember that at this point in the Vietnam War, they were handing out medal like candy. We have a former presidential candidate who can attest to that.”
George Bush and Dick Cheney should’ve gotten in line for some of that candy.
Instead, they stayed home where they wouldn’t have to clean up their own messes.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – I had so hoped that you had moved past the unscientific mess of symbolic racism. Are you hoping that if you link it enough that people with believe it?
====================
Of course not PS, belief is religion.
Science is knowing.
We know who is racist even when they believe they are not.
Psychology is like that.
My American History studies dealt with the military careers of presidents like Washington during the French and Indian War, Jackson during the War of 1812 in the Battle of New Orleans, Lincoln’s campaign in the Black Hawk hostilities, and T.R.’s exploits in Cuba, in addition to Kennedy’s heroism.
I take your earlier allusion to John Kerry as a reference to the Swiftboat campaign that sought to tarnish his honor. The Swiftboat political assassination was one component of Karl Rove’s crowning achievement, the others being retribution against Dan Rather to satisfy an old grudge held by the Bush family, and the successful coverup of W.’s desertion and dereliction of duty while enlisted in the Air National Guard. It is a Rovian tactic, maybe an Atwater strategy, of spending vast sums of money spreading falsehoods to attack an opponents strength. The poorly functioning critical thinking skills of the American voters make them susceptible to that sort of blanket messaging.
Control of the media has long been essential to controlling the voting behavior of Americans. With this Supreme Court decision, that control is being squeezed in a vicegrip. Someone above said something about using words to persuade people as to the value of religion, in this case Christianity. When spoken under sanction of government, words become the power to coerce. the message becomes a demand to submit, submit to believe in “our” god, or risk being labeled an outsider.
History is replete with leaders who claim to have special knowledge of god’s will. Every instance has led to tragic circumstances
123 – only 7% of the press self-identify as Republican, so how could Rove control the press?
123 wrote: “History is replete with leaders who claim to have special knowledge of god’s will. Every instance has led to tragic circumstances.”
I’m not sure who you have in mind. Jesus Christ and Osama Bin Laden are both leaders with claims to special knowledge of God’s will, but they took very different paths.
All this talk about Sen. Joseph McCarthy brought to mind the 1960’s movie The Manchurian Candidate.
Annie
Perfecto!
Every blog needs a Mike Appleton.
Thank you, Counselor.
http://youtu.be/eCxi5VOYKOY
Efforts to rehabilitate Sen. McCarthy are as pointless as revisionist theories on the “War of Northern Aggression.” He was a thoroughly detestable man. And yes, I still have my well-thumbed copies of “None Dare Call It Treason” and “You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists)”. The red scare was great for some careers and bad for others, but it was tailor-made for political grandstanding and self-promotion, long on implication and short on substance and pretty much a waste of time and money for no useful purpose.