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.
bigfatmike:
you seem to be waffling on the idea of the importance of character. Is it important or not? I think it is.
The Clintons and the Kennedys both disrespected women and Hillary engaged in blaming the victims of Bill’s dalliances. At best Hillary has abused woman’s syndrome at worst she is just a conniving hypocrite.
Byron – Hillary is the original founder of the ‘War on Women’ with her attacks on the women that Bill either seduced or in one case allegedly raped. Hillary has a lot to answer for to the sisterhood.
@Bron “you seem to be waffling on the idea of the importance of character. Is it important or not? I think it is.”
Not long ago I finishes a strikingly original and truly impressive answer to your question. Unfortunately that answer was swallowed by the spam filter. So you will just have to make do with this hack.
In my experience the evidence is mixed. Individuals seem to have an amazing ability to compartmentalize their lives. Surely you have seen men who rarely if ever leave anything undone at work yet neglect their families.
As I see it shortcomings in personal life are not necessarily reliable indicators of performance in public life.
There are many things I did not like about Clinton as a president. But don’t think they had anything to do with his treatment of women.
And, so far as we know Obama is correct in his dealings with women. But there are many things I have criticized about his administration.
I don’t believe there are any simple answers or reliable indicators when it comes go evaluating leadership potential.
When it comes to politics and leadership I ‘ain’t talkin’ bout love’.
Feynman:
Yes they did and it was a shame that JFK and RFK were killed. I just think there is much misplaced admiration for that clan.
I think Ted Kennedy ended his life better than he was at the time of the accident and he took seriously his obligation to his brothers’ children.
I think Bush’s grandfather was soft on them as well, but I think GW on par with JFK and his [the Bush] family is as bad in their own way. I dread the idea of a Jeb Bush presidency, god help us.
I think Ted Kennedy did what he thought was right but I think he did it out of guilt rather than any sort of affection or regard for the people he was helping. He did it to make amends for himself being rich through no effort of his own. I think he hated the rich and himself and spent his years in the senate trying to pay for his real or imagined sins through his liberal policies.
.
BFM, How the Kennedy men REALLY feel about women is how they have abused them throughout generations.
I agree there is a lot to the idea that behavior or conduct is the real measure of our standards.
Byron, Defending the Kennedy’s is fun to watch. There are many “Yeah, but’s.”
Byron,
Joe Senior was indeed a cad and very soft on the Nazis. Charles Liindbergh, a Republican, was also soft on the Nazis.
Also, three of Kennedy’s sons died while serving their country. And while I do not expect you to agree, Teddy’s years of service in the Senate were not undistinguished. Beats a lot of the current crop.
” Teddy’s years of service in the Senate were not undistinguished.”
I would not suggest that character is unimportant.
But it seems that character in one’s personal life is overrated as an indicator for one’s capacity for public service.
And on the other hand we also see those who mouth pious words and still abuse their public trust.
If only there were a simple check list so we would know were to put our trust.
RTC:
Nigel Hamilton seems like a pretty good biographer. He may have a case of the a$$ for the Kennedys but you will need to show me he as an axe to grind.
Teddy Kennedy left an accident and a woman drowned in like 5 or 6′ of water. Joe Kennedy was involved in some way with bootlegging during prohibition [not that I think that is bad] and other questionable practices. He also was soft on the Nazis and avoided the draft in WWI. And he had multiple mistresses.
I find it funny that republicans admire the wealthy who work hard and are moral people while democrats worship the Kennedys.
RTC/Mr. Keebler:
In regard to JFK show me it is a lie, so far lots of huffing and puffing.
I am pretty consistent in my beliefs. If I am wrong about something I will freely admit to being wrong.
I just havent seen much that the left is right about.
Mr. Keebler: Please show me the thread you are alluding to.
Paul: “It is from the official Naval records.”
—————————————
Nevertheless, a hollow recitation that doesn’t alter the facts concerning JFK’s service or courage.
RTC – you are beating a dead horse. JFK couldn’t keep his pants zipped. And eventually Jackie, in retaliation, couldn’t keep her dress zipped. JFK tried to share his father’s mistress and did share a mistress with his brother. There is good reason to believe that the death of Marilyn Monroe is suspicious and the Kennedy’s were involved. Brother Teddy killed a woman and was involved in a series of sexual escapades of his own. Peter Lawford’s job as brother-in-law was as resident pimp.
List the accomplishments of JFK while in office. Do not include those taken after his death.
Darren: Interesting questions that would make for a good mock trial.
Wouldn’t want to go after his estate for real, though. There’d be nothing left for the meek to inherit.
Darren,
If you wrote this I am deeply impressed, if you used another source I’d like to see it. This made my morning.
This brings up an interesting notion. Would Jesus be subject to Vicarious Liability with regard to those murdering in his name? He had died, so presumably his estate might could be considerd subject to a judgement, but then he was resurrected. He is within heaven, so he could be considered outside any Earthly jurisdiction. But, since he is in our hearts, does this constitute a significant nexus? Those who receive the blood and body of Christ through communion often times corrupt themselves later. But, our constitution prohibits charging people due to corruption of blood.
Maybe it ultimately is a case of sovereign immunity as he is of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Paul: “Interesting how you assign blame to some and not to others.”
——————————-
Not sure what you’re referring to. Could you be more specific?
RTC wrote:
If Jesus rose from the dead, then it’s logical to conclude that he’s responsible for many of the millions of people killed in his name.
~+~
This brings up an interesting notion. Would Jesus be subject to Vicarious Liability with regard to those murdering in his name? He had died, so presumably his estate might could be considerd subject to a judgement, but then he was resurrected. He is within heaven, so he could be considered outside any Earthly jurisdiction. But, since he is in our hearts, does this constitute a significant nexus? Those who receive the blood and body of Christ through communion often times corrupt themselves later. But, our constitution prohibits charging people due to corruption of blood.
Maybe it ultimately is a case of sovereign immunity as he is of the Kingdom of Heaven.
What Mike A. said.
Paul
For what it is worth, Yes you were denigrating JFK’s service by suggesting he got his PT appointment due to his womanizing. It would be nice to actually get citations or links to sources who make these claims, unless they are just someone’s opinion.
rafflaw – my understanding is that the offended husband was high enough ranking to get him assigned to the PT boats and the Pacific. Far away from his wife.
davidm:
I found your last comment astonishing, and astonishingly wrong. I am also finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you are genuinely unable to perceive the distinctions I have repeatedly attempted to explain. But your charges of religious bigotry summon my persistence.
I begin by denying the accusation that I have “denigrated” Dominionists. I have done no such thing. I have spoken ill of no one. I have questioned the honesty and integrity of no one. I have slandered no one’s reputation or standing in their community.
What I have done is express my opposition to certain ideas and my unwillingness to confer political power on persons who promote those ideas. My quote from Gary North was neither inaccurate nor taken out of context. He is a principal spokesman for the Dominionist movement and he speaks candidly and forthrightly. But I vehemently disagree with him. The goal of the movement is the establishment of a theocratic society in which the tenets of a particular branch of Christian fundamentalism will be given the force of law and adherence to those tenets made a condition of political equality in this nation.
If you are familiar with the work of Gary North, I suppose you have also read Rushdoony and Schaeffer. You would also know that Dominionism regards democracy and pluralism as enemies of a godly society. And you would understand that adherents to Dominionist theology are expected to work toward effecting the constitutional changes necessary to make their views binding law.
You have also urged that Dominionists are not acting unlawfully in promoting the legislative adoption of their beliefs, implying that I have asserted a contrary position. I have not. My opposition to theocratic government is not predicated upon the manner, but the fact, of its implementation. I cannot support any system of government that would abolish freedom of religion.
Your comparison of my opinion to that of someone who would refuse to vote for a Protestant out of disdain for Protestantism is erroneous and intellectually dishonest. My position would remain unchanged were the Pope to declare it the obligation of Catholic politicians to move the country toward the establishment of a government in which recognition of the primacy of the papacy in matters of religion were a condition of citizenship.
What you repeatedly fail to grasp, or merely refuse to acknowledge, is that Dominionism is not simply an innocuous species of dogmatic neo-Calvinism or overly-zealous Pentecostalism. It is a political movement with specific political goals, the accomplishment of which would fundamentally alter the foundational values of democracy. I can no more support political candidates espousing Dominionism than I could support candidates demanding a constitutional amendment abolishing the right to trial by jury.
Discriminatory behavior is immoral. Discriminating judgment is expected of mature adults. My disagreement with your religious views is not bigotry. Neither, then, is my refusal to vote for someone who wishes to incorporate those views into the positive law of the country.
Mike Appleton –
There were other commentators here who focused upon the concept that religious bigotry is justified if the religion causes actions that are illegal. That was why I was emphasizing that the Dominionist you quoted does not operate that way. I never meant to imply that you accused them of being criminals. I was being conscious of all the readers here and not just you.
Some of our discussion is a bit hampered because you continually associate Dominionism with Fundamentalism, whereas I see them as very different branches of theology. Fundamentalism tends to follow a strict literal reading of the Bible, and they are usually premillennial in their eschatology. They view the book of Revelation for the most part is yet to be fulfilled in the future. Dominionism is actually a kind of liberal response toward Fundamentalism. They take a less literal interpretation of the Bible and tend to be postmillennial in their eschatology. They view most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled already and that Christ already reigned for the non-literal thousand years. Among theists, the Dominionists and Fundamentalists fight all the time, the Dominionists arguing that government is of God and that Christians simply should take over the leadership of civil society through non-violent means and the democratic process. In contrast, the Fundamentalists argue that the government is ruled behind the scenes spiritually by the Beast, by Satan who is god of this world, and that Christians will be persecuted by the government and it will only get far worse. Fundamentalists generally argue that Christians need to get out of anything to do with government, that they should become part of the faithful remnant (minority) who wait for Christ’s return when he will establish his own government by force.
I fully recognize your right not to vote for a particular Dominionist, and even to argue against the danger of Dominionism, but to say that you would never vote for a Dominionist goes too far. It goes into the realm of why laws against religious discrimination have been created.
I cannot say that I would never vote for an atheist, even though I would argue that atheism is very dangerous to civil government because atheists reject the idea of God. I would not expect most atheists to rule fairly over a population that includes many Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I have even heard an atheist say that she would not vote for an atheist because she does not think they could be fair to the theist majority. When we fall into the trap of creating a label for a group of people, and then denigrate that group based upon the label, that is the very basis for bigotry and prejudice. Even though you may have done your homework and are convinced you are right, people who listen to you form a hatred toward members of that group based upon prejudice. Such leads to injustice in society. Individuals often don’t conform exactly in all ways to the stereotype created for that group.
I know you claim that you do not denigrate them, but when you claim that you would not vote for a member of a religious group, you are declaring that any member of that group is unfit for public office. That is denigrating them, and that is preaching a denigration of them based upon prejudice against the group. You are denying members of that group a right of citizenship.
Byron: “I just repeated what I read in a JFK biography.”
Repeating a lie is the same thing as telling a lie. Goehring said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true. The basis of the Republican/Fox denial industry mission statement
David: I have a bible on my bookshelf. I believe it is real, that is, it exists. Just like wikipedia exists. But I don’t believe much of what’s written in either one. Well, that’s not true. I put more stock in wikipedia.
BTW, in your response to 123, you said that Jesus didn’t kill anybody. Not true, at least not if you believe in the bible. If Jesus rose from the dead, then it’s logical to conclude that he’s responsible for many of the millions of people killed in his name.
Also, 123 makes a good point that government sanctioned religion is not persuasion but coercion.
And nobody misinterpeted the founder’s belief in freedom from the tyranny of religion in government. This country was not founded as a christian nation.
RTC – Interesting how you assign blame to some and not to others.
RTC wrote: “And nobody misinterpeted the founder’s belief in freedom from the tyranny of religion in government. This country was not founded as a christian nation.”
Then you disagree with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer who wrote the majority opinion in “Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States.”
Paul Schulte: Your comment at 9:27 is completely devoid of meaning, merely a recitation of a record. As a teacher, would you not suspect one of your pupils of plagarism?
Nevertheless, it’s understandable why you’d want to shift the focus away from Kennedy onto Clinton. The truth about JFK is that he lobbied hard to get a battle assignment against his father’s wishes. JFK had an urgent need to compete with his brother Joe on every level, and Joe was a heroic combat pilot.
If you care to shift the focus to Clinton, perhaps you’d like to include Cheney and W in the mix.
Actually, since they were not trying to get a grade and it was part of a discussion, not I would not think it was plagarism. It is like lawyers playing dueling citations in court. Not sure what your problem is though. It is from the official Naval records.
Bryon – I went to lunch. Have no idea what happened after that. I read the posts, but not sure what to reply to, since much of it seemed to get deleted.
Nick – enjoy, I had Chinese at a new place for us called Wok Box, where they have Wok hours.
Byron, Bron, or Bryon,
Just read between the lines. Some are here to have discussions, some are here to act as disruptions. Your choice. I don’t care for hypocrits nor dishonest folks. That’s why I got posts deleted.
When you start posting and you post inconsistent posts and hold them out to be the gospel according to, whomever and then the next thread you deny your ever said that, yeah, I have issues with that, especially when you try and drag me in the middle of it. Whatever you do is your business.