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.
I threw my support to them too and they havent failed to disappoint since ’88.
I dont understand those sorts of white folks either, I should have listened to Jesse Jackson when he said “stay out the Bushes.” Apparently Jesse is a prophet and I am listening to him in ’16.
I am damn sure staying out of the Bushes.
FEYNMAN:
which meaning of facile are you going with?
You are correct, just not in the way you may imagine. 🙂
And I’m not too sure how well Robinson ‘understood’ white people. He threw his support to the Republicans and was greatly disappointed. .
Smarter and tougher people than you have tried. I’m here, they’re gone.
Please take yours and go.
Feynman, Jackie was helped to find housing by the publishing magnate Simon, of Simon and Shuster. He helped Jack and Rachel find a house in Greenwich, Ct. a mecca of limo liberals. Now, Simon and many neighbors were genuine people, but Jack and Rachel picked out the limo and faux liberals quite easily. That experience helped him w/ JFK. As for his politics after the 1960 election, Jack had a hard life. His son overdosed on heroin which devastated Jack. A very brittle form of diabetes, uncontrolled by insulin, lead to his very early death in 1972. Rachel lives on and is one of the most intelligent, gracious, beautiful women to ever walk this earth. She took so much. As you know, it is often much worse to see someone you love suffer. I would MUCH rather suffer than see my kids or wife. When people attack my wife or kids I see red!! This is not to say Rachel was not also attacked, but Jack was attacked much more viciously.
raff.
Robinson did support Nixon but ultimately was disappointed and felt Nixon did not deserve to win. Robinson gave up on presidential politics when Goldwater won the nomination. Perhaps Nick can provide a citation. I only read the one article. However, I think Nick’s view is far too facile.
Thanks for the link Feynman.
There seems to be a lot of back and forth on these “limiting” accusations. Free speech dictates one has a right to make a point and others have a right to agree, argue, or ignore. I can tell someone they have no right to say candy is not tasty. You can agree, disagree, or ignore that comment. It seems very clear to me Jonathan is the sole arbiter of what others can say. Although, there was a little talk of censorship earlier today. Glad to see that had no traction. The “I’m taking my ball and going home” is always silly.
Nick,
Please share your citations or links to evidence that Jackie Robinson thought JFK was a limo liberal and was a Nixon backer.
I think this is a very interesting article about Jackie Robinson and his role in presidential politics. It does confirm Nick’s assessment regarding Robinson and JFK. But Robinson wound up disillusioned with all presidential candidates in that era (he might have supported Humphrey). Oddly, the article does not address Robinson’s view of LBJ after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. But a terrific article all the same.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/4/15/4225534/jackie-robinson-richard-nixon-42-movie-civil-rights
The article tells of an important call made to Mrs. King by JFK expressing his support of MLK upon his arrest in GA. The article says that call caused African Americans to shift their support from Nixon to JFK. That shift included MLK Sr. And we all remember just how tight that race was. The article supposes that as many as five states went to JFK because of that call.
Interesting stuff.
Paul,
I never said it was my job, but you were the one trying to limit someone else’s comments. That was the reason for my response.
Secondly, Presidents don’t pass legislation and for some reason I seem to recall that JFK was unable to complete his term. Finally, even if I accept your claim that the Kennedy’s were dragged into agreeing with the Civil Rights movement, which I don’t, at least they agreed. We can’t say the same thing about Republicans with global climate change, womens rights and equal pay, marriage equality, etc.
david – I am going to agree with you in part. Jesus the Christ was convicted of treason, for claiming to be the King of the Jews, a position already held by a Roman appointee. That is why he was crucified, not stoned. Stoning was for heretics, crucifixion was for traitors.
Laser, Really. Jackie Robinson was a UCLA educated man. He was book smart, people smart, and street smart, a triple threat just as he was on athletic fields. Jackie supported Nixon. He met w/ both JFK and Nixon and went w/ the guy who didn’t treat him w/ paternalism and condescension. Jackie said he saw Nixon as the consummate political animal who would do what was needed to get votes. You see, Laser, Jackie always preached that black people needed to not be beholden to any one party. By putting all their eggs in one basket they lose their leverage. He has certainly been proven right. Hispanics have been more savvy, they spread their support. I hope they continue to do so. Dems are trying to enslave Hispanics as they have black voters.
Bullies are ugly and unG-dly
No matter how you package the premise.
Exactly Mike.
davidm:
Your claim of religious bigotry is premised upon your belief that Dominionism is merely a religious movement. It is not. It is a political movement with a particular theological foundation. Freedom of religion includes the right to seek to persuade others of the truth of one’s beliefs. Dominionism teaches that if persuasion doesn’t work, compulsion is acceptable. In other words, its politics are antithetical to freedom of religion. Indeed, it rejects the notion of freedom of religion entirely. It makes no difference to me whether a particular Dominionist adheres to premillenialism or postmillenialism. When I say I will not vote for a Dominionist, I am making a political statement rather than a religious judgment.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Your claim of religious bigotry is premised upon your belief that Dominionism is merely a religious movement. It is not.”
I think your perspective here is based upon your own lens of religious pluralism being an absolute truth. Not everybody agrees with this concept.
I would say that most religious systems are not “merely a religious movement.” Many Muslims take up arms to fight nations that do not fully and completely embrace Islam. The Jews once had a theocracy, and since they lost their political autonomy thousands of years ago, they have forever sought to get it back. And while they did get their nation back in 1948, and while the majority of its leaders today embrace secularism, not all of them do. Many of those who have returned to Israel from various countries around the world hope for the kind of nation that they once had, based upon a nationalism around their deity. Christians in the past also have taken up arms to establish their dominion, most notably the various crusades against Islam taking over the Jewish Holy Land. Such is not surprising because the founder of the various Christian religions, Jesus Christ, preached primarily a political message. His message was about the Kingdom of God. He literally preached a Nation of God. That is a political message. The prophecies about him were about how he would establish a righteous government that would help the poor and relieve them of their oppression. Although Jesus did not lead his disciples into taking up arms against the Romans, he was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews. That represented a political problem to the Romans and to his fellow Jews.
It is not fair to say that when religion crosses over from talking about a private personal spirituality to giving political speech, that somehow that crosses some line of the improper role of religion that allows us to discriminate against it.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Dominionism teaches that if persuasion doesn’t work, compulsion is acceptable. In other words, its politics are antithetical to freedom of religion.”
Where does it teach that? Certainly not in the quote that you offered from Gary North.
The theology of Dominionism suggests that the tenets of Jesus Christ are so acceptable to all of humanity that once all of humanity fully hears it and understands it, they will vote to embrace it. There would be no need for compulsion or government coercion. It follows the vision of Daniel chapter 2, of how the Nation of Christ would be the mountain established without hands and without battles. The thinking is that once citizens are brave enough to embrace his message and not be ashamed of it, and once society votes it in voluntarily, then Jesus who resides in heaven will return and assume his rightful place in this new government.
The biggest problem with religious discrimination is that the religion being discriminated against is often misunderstood and misrepresented.
And just because you discriminate against the religions of Dominionism for political reasons does not make it any less discriminatory. That would be like me discriminating against homosexuals for the political reason of forcing a change in the legal definition of marriage, ultimately destroying the concept of marriage, and thinking that somehow that excuses me and gives me the right to discriminate against homosexuals because my reasons are legal and political. I would never say that I would never vote for a homosexual just because I object for political reasons to homosexual political advocacy.
I think you could say that the Vietnam War protesters did not take JFK’s words to heart.
david; – I have NO idea who “they” is – when you speak of U.S. liberal/dems!
Nick – REALLY!
WOW!
I find the whole we v they concept to be a failed logic from the outset. As a (former) die-hard RW, Christian, homophobe – who learned of possible yiddish roots late in life (about 10 years ago – I’m now 57). It was prudent for me to turn around and become Progressive.
Traditionalists and Politicos all have the same weakness.
WE = ME = Not They.
The very fact that you state GOP embrace JFK’s remarks;
is a demonstrate that “we” v “they” isn’t absolute.
Any argument for absolutism is despotic!
OMG