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.
Dr. Stanley:
“To accuse a Naval officer of deliberately disobeying orders, losing his boat and getting part of his crew killed is significantly different than getting some nookie. To lie about an officer’s service while in harm’s way is NOT the truth. ”
I just repeated what I read in a JFK biography.
“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship.” -Gary North
Why I cannot vote for a Dominionist. Am I a bigot, as davidm contends?
“Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship.” -Gary North”
Well that doesn’t sound very Christian!
Mike Appleton wrote:
==============
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship.” -Gary North
Why I cannot vote for a Dominionist. Am I a bigot, as davidm contends?
=============
Quoting one man out of context (even stopping the quote mid-sentence and adding your own period within the quote) and then denigrating everybody who is part of that religion is bigotry. It is no different than partially quoting one black man out of context and then saying that you will never vote for a black man.
Allow me to offer the above quote in more full context:
===========
This same principle applies to the civil covenant. Christians are not to be unequally yoked with non-Christians. There is only one way to achieve this goal: withdrawal from politics. The question is: Who should withdraw, covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers? Pietists answer that covenant-keepers should withdraw; biblical theocrats insist that covenant-breakers should withdraw. One side or the other must eventually exclude its rival. (Political pluralists argue that both groups can make a permanent political covenant.) The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism. and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.
=========
“Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism” pp 86-87
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/political_polytheism.pdf
Please notice this last sentence which is cut off in your quote:
“, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.”
So Gary North argues to operate within our democratic system of using persuasion and legal means to revise the Constitution. Nothing illegal here. It is no different than the philosophy of atheists and secular humanists working through legal channels to create the society that they envision: one free from any significant religious influence. You are certainly free not to vote for a person who you consider leading us in the wrong direction on this, but to argue that you would not vote for someone who is part of his religion would be the same thing as me saying that I would never vote for a secular humanist or atheist or agnostic. It would be the same thing as a Protestant Christians saying that he would never vote for anyone other than a Protestant Christian. Such is a vote would be based upon bigotry and prejudice. Having a rational reason for your bigotry does not make it any less prejudicial. All intelligent bigots attempt to rationalize their position and justify it.
What Chuck said!
Paul,
I don’t recall Bill Clinton–or Hillary, for that matter–engaging in a personal ad hominem attack on any combat veteran for his or her service in combat. I also don’t think his advisers hired somebody like Frank Luntz to run focus groups on how to attack somebody’s service record. If he had, I think I probably would have heard about it.
Nice try at moving the goalposts, but getting back on point. The attacks on JFK’s military service continue to this day, as we have seen on this thread. Truth doesn’t seem to matter to some political operatives, as long as it tears down the memory of somebody they never cared for. However, in this internet age, it is easier to call BS on lies and spin. The trick is to avoid getting caught up in a Gish Gallop and stay focused. So…..what about LTJG Kennedy being where he was supposed to be, did not disobey a direct order, suffered wounds that plagued him the rest of his life, and earned several medals?
John F. Kennedy was awarded the Purple Heart, the Navy & Marine Corps Medal, American Defense Service Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with 3 Bronze Stars, and the World War Two Victory Medal.
His Navy & Marine Corps Medal citation reads:
Did you know the first medal created for the military was by George Washington himself in 1782? It was initially called the “Badge of Military Merit,” and depicted a purple heart with the inscription “MERIT” on the face. It was not until 1932 that General “Blackjack” Pershing suggested changing the “Badge of Military Merit” to the “Purple Heart,” which now bears Washington’s likeness in profile. Washington thought the highest sacrifice a soldier or sailor could make was to shed blood in combat. The following is from the General Orders written by George Washington in 1782:
Here is General Order No. 3, effecting the change of name for the medal:
Chuck – I never questioned JFKs military service. I only commented on how he ended up in the Pacific. You’re wasting a lot of fire in this direction.
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “For one thing they tend to think that science is just a matter of belief.”
They actually have a point.
…
====================
I put the video in my previous comment.
The questions are for you.
And what rafflaw just asked.
Is this scientist speaking what she knows or what she believes?
Would prayer change that?
Wow. It amazes me that the spin masters are attempting to denigrate the war record of a deceased, decorated ex-president, some 50 plus years after his death. Denigrating someone who didn’t shirk his responsibility to serve his country is a very Christian thing to do, isn’t it?
Paul,
If you have a concern with the allegedly inherent problems with the authorship of Wiki articles, how can you believe in the Bible?
rafflaw wrote: “Paul, If you have a concern with the allegedly inherent problems with the authorship of Wiki articles, how can you believe in the Bible?”
Paul is an agnostic, so obviously he does not believe in the Bible. If you can’t keep up with people’s stated assumptions, how can there be meaningful dialogue?
rafflaw wrote: “Denigrating someone who didn’t shirk his responsibility to serve his country is a very Christian thing to do, isn’t it?”
If you are not a Christian, and the primary person questioning events concerning President Kennedy is not a Christian, then why would you even categorize something as a Christian thing or not?
I do wonder, however, if your ruler of what is Christian is accurate. John the Baptist denigrated King Herod about who he married. He was so obnoxious about it that he was arrested and eventually executed. Jesus, after whom Christianity is named, denigrated many religious leaders, including the Sanhedrin, which would be analogous to our Supreme Court. Jesus called them snakes, vipers, and hypocrites. He too was so obnoxious that he was arrested and executed. Would you consider these men “unChristian” also?
Right wing conspiracy is not an ad hominem attack?
rafflaw – I don’t believe the Bible is direct word of God. I do believe that parts of it are historical in nature.
David, you appear to think that if you assert it, it is true.
Jeremy, I always attempt to assert the truth, but just because I assert something does not mean that it is true because our knowledge is limited. We make conclusions based upon knowledge available at the time we make our conclusions. If you need more info about something I assert, just ask. There is a lot of study behind nearly everything I assert to be true.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/About.FAQ/ID/251/What-Does-Non-Trinitarian-Mean.htm
David,
Non Christian groups that attempt to affect public policy aren’t trying to destroy the Seperation of Church and State.
Jeremy wrote: “Non Christian groups that attempt to affect public policy aren’t trying to destroy the Seperation of Church and State.”
Oh yes they are! Their definition of this phrase is completely different than what Thomas Jefferson meant when he used it. They have destroyed the concept, interpreting it to mean freedom from religion in government and the public sphere. Only those who believe religion should be an entirely private matter could agree with their concept of separation of church and state. They would be very happy with a secular or atheistic government, similar to communism under the old Soviet Union, North Korea or China. In fact, some people perceive that the communists in America simply hide under the banner of separation of church and state today, even though the concept was originally articulated by theists, particularly Protestant Christians.
Nick,
That is most insulting as well as an uncivil comment. Third grade theatrics. I think Elaine picked that up as well. Chess with Chickens. I guess we are just putting cheese in a bait trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
Jill45 – I do not accept Wikipedia as a source because of the inherent problems with it authorship, etc.
keebler – that should be = I have taught world religions and have at least a more than fuzzy knowledge of the basic tenets. My coffee clearly is not strong enough this morning.
http://www.christadelphia.org/belief.htm
Paul Schulte
keebler – I have taught world religions and have at least a less than fuzzy knowledge of their basic tenants.
*****
Pray tell, what are the basic tenants of a religion? The people who live in churches and temples and mosques?
Paul, You’re playing chess w/ chickens.
Elaine – I am so disappointed in you, however, I will remember your comments. 🙂
Jill45 – when you teach World Religions you do not have the time to cover every religion known to mankind. You usually go with the majors and the top minors. I taught so many different classes that it was nigh impossible to keep on top of all of them, but I did the best I could.
Please educate me on these two religious groups, since you seem familiar.
Paul,
I could not agree more to your statement about having less than a fuzzy knowledge. You made my point.
Paul, yet you know nothing about Non Trinitarians and Christadelphians. You claim they are not true Christians. If that is what you taught, I shudder to think you were allowed to teach.
?????What has Clinton got to do with the accusations about JFK?
Last I heard, they were two different people.