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.
Schulte: Hilary’s war on women? Please do tell.
As for the rest of your comment: what’s your point? You’ve made my case. Thank you.
Oh, I get it, you’re agreeing with me. Well that’s good.
What’s next.
How about this:
keebler – the Republican House and S’enate balanced the budget, Clinton said it could not be done while he was President. The’n he was ‘forced’ to sign it. He did not do it, he took credit for it, but he really had no hand in it.
Frontline reported that Greenspan went to Clinton and said that the deficit needed to be reduced before he could lower interest rates. Clinton called in Bob Dole and asked if it could be done and Dole got to work. He sat around a table with both sides in congress and chipped away at a deal. Greenspan lowered rates, economy took off, Clinton eliminated the national debt, which included the S&L scandal obligations, and everybody was happy until Wall St. sold us short. For his efforts, Dole was treated to a farewell tour known as his campaign for president, which everyone in the Beltway knew he was not intended to win, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded by his partner in time, if not crime, Bill Clinton.
Now, you have the truth. Pass it on, pass it on.
RTC – Hillary’s War on Women is the Bimbo Eruption Squad where she suppressed and harassed any woman who dared to tell on Biilly boy.
Elaine, I feel your pain. I have friends and relatives drinking the crazy juice, too.
DavidM: I take your position on women’s rights to be an extension of your religious views. Everything I know about Fundamentalism and Dominionism comes from the discussion between you and Mike, and it’s more than I needed to know. Your explanation scares the bejeezus out of with statements like this:
“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’m sure that at some point in the past, I had come across information regarding the believes of at least one of these groups, and it was enough for me to know that they’re all a bunch of nutjobs that I want nothing to do with. The rest is nothing more than a lot of details that I don’t want to be carrying around in my head.
Which brings up an interesting point about your intensive studies of religion. Any time a bus driver forces children to pray to Jesus or a school teacher rants about Satan in class, you’re quick to argue for their right to do so, while denying that you’re religious. You’re theist, not religious; a distinction I hold is without meaning. It is like someone refusing to be identified by race, nationality, or heritage, and insisting, “I’m a homo sapiens, not an Italian-American.”
I think you look around at society and pass moral judgements. I think you’re frustrated that people are allowed to behave in ways you disapprove of and look to religion to impose the sort of control over people behaviors, particularly women. I see this need for control as coming from great weakness. Ironically, it has its counterpart in the Islamic fundamentalist movements.
Somewhere over in the Middle East, there’s a full-bearded guy wearing a headscarf named Dawud, blogging the very same ideas about women and religion as you.
RTC,
I also have a close relative who watches FOX. I’ve found it difficult to have reasonable discussions with FOX News followers. I rarely discuss politics with them.
Elaine: Couldn’t stage an intervention, huh?
Friends don’t let friends believe the lies.
DavidM: That’s all well and good about the sacrifices you made for the sake of your wife’s career, however, I think we’re getting closer to the nub of your insecurity. Again, I have to point out that this seems like such a deeply-seated personal issue that I’m almost uncomfortable for you in discussing it.
Nevertheless, this isn’t the first time you’ve alleged that women’s rights operate to make men sissies. Perhaps you could expand on that concept.
In the mean time, I’ll just say that the Democratic Party is being responsive to the vast numbers of American women who are pushing back against social norms that forbid them from having the same type of fulfilling sex lives men have enjoyed for generations; responsive to the population of women who envision lives for themselves that go beyond the role of breeder and keeper and demand changes in the laws that prevent them from an equal opportunity to pursue those alternatives and profit equally and fairly from them. That would make the Democratic Party the party that listens…and represents. Ever hear of Lilly Ledbetter? Perhaps in another generation or two, guys like you and Schulte can attempt to rewrite her saga to make appear Democrats were against her right to receive equal pay. For the time being, Republicans are going to have own their efforts to enforce the discrimination against her.
I note your use of the term “baby daddy”, and take it as an implication that birth control is leading to rampant breeding among minorities, alluding to past comments about blacks breeding for welfare dollars. You should maybe walk that back a bit.
Would that be the Democratic Party which includes Hillary Clinton who lead a war on women? Or Barack Obama who pays women in his office less than men?
A Hard Worker Despite Tough Conditions:
From 1979 to 1998 Lilly worked tirelessly at a Goodyear plant on an overnight shift from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. where she was subjected daily to sexual discrimination and harassment. She received a “Top Performance Award” in 1996, but her raises never matched her performance and were not in line with those given to men.
In 2007, she testified before Congress about her EEOC complaint about a supervisor who demanded sexual favors if she wanted good job performance reviews. He was reassigned, but asserting her rights only made things worse and led to isolation, further sexual discrimination, and retaliation against Ledbetter.
Lilly’s Anonymous Angel:
Lilly signed a contract with her employer that she would not discuss pay rates with other workers. She had no way of knowing that she was being underpaid until just before her retirement when a source that remains anonymous today, slipped a note into her mailbox. The note listed the salaries of three other men doing the same who were being paid $4,286 to $5,236 per month. Lilly was only making $3,727 per month.
When she filed a complaint with the EEOC she was subsequently assigned to lift heavy tires. She was in her 60s at the time but she continued to perform the tasks her ruthless employer required of her.
Why What She Did Mattered:
Lilly had no idea she was being underpaid. She was prohibited from asking about or talking about pay wages. She did not have tangible evidence until she was ready to retire 19 years into her employment that she was being cheated.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that to have legal standing, a person must file a complaint within 180 of the first discriminatory pay practice – even if they did not know about it until much later. This allowed employers to get away with underpaying workers based on color, sex, or other discriminatory reasons as long as workers did not know about it and take legal immediate action.
This doesn’t sound like Paul, so I assume he was quoting an article:
“She did not have tangible evidence until she was ready to retire 19 years into her employment that she was being cheated.”
The problem I have with this sentence is saying that she was “cheated.” She worked for the pay to which she agreed. That is not being cheated. No employer is obligated to pay everyone the same. There were some men that were paid more than other men by a much greater degree. Were these men also cheated? Every person agrees to work for a particular wage, and it is never cheating to pay different employees different amounts if both parties agree to it.
Women should consider that the reason they often are paid less is because they agree to work for less. Men tend to be more aggressive. It is likely that men more often look for higher paying jobs if they are not being paid enough.
One nice thing about the possibility of electing Hillary Clinton is that perhaps she would agree to a 30% cut in pay for doing the same work. Of course, that is not as good as we would have had with Mitt Romney who likely would have given back the entire Presidential salary and worked as President for free.
RTC wrote: “Nevertheless, this isn’t the first time you’ve alleged that women’s rights operate to make men sissies. Perhaps you could expand on that concept.”
When women usurp the role of men, and women keep the talents they have that men lack, it leads to men feeling unnecessary, worthless, and disrespected. Many men in such relationships won’t work. They basically become bums. It has led to all kinds of financial problems in marriages and arguments about it. Ultimately, many marriages have been destroyed by it.
The traditional perspective taught men to be gallant and chivalrous. It led to men showing the utmost respect toward women. Men were to treat women like royalty, opening doors for them, or even throwing their coat down on a puddle so she would not get her feet dirty. With the advance of feminism, women began to be offended by the extension of such respect. They perceived it to be an indication that the man thought the woman inferior and unable to do for herself. Feminism became a rebellion against the idea that men and women were created different from one another, different in regards to strength, inclinations and talents.
The real place where we see liberals pushing their agenda is in Hollywood. Cartoons and movies always characterize men as stupid, weak and inept. The woman almost always appear smart, courageous, and more capable. She is often portrayed using martial arts to totally destroy men. The same kind of thing is done with race. Blacks are usually presented as heroes and good guys, rarely ever the villain. White men usually are portrayed as evil and corrupt murderers and criminals. Rather than reflect reality, they preach their doctrine of equality by these means.
All of this comes about because of the twisted notion of equality. Equality does not mean they are the same, or that they have the same roles. The conservative concept of equality speaks to having equal standing before the law, having equal worth and utility, and having equal opportunity. A proper understanding of gender is one of diversity. In marriage, unity is not about becoming the same, but about a complementary union where the strengths of one gender make up for weakness in the opposite gender, and vice versa.
RTC wrote: “I’ll just say that the Democratic Party is being responsive to the vast numbers of American women who are pushing back against social norms that forbid them from having the same type of fulfilling sex lives men have enjoyed for generations;…”
LOL. You talk like conservatives do not teach men to live chaste disciplined lives. No, it is not being responsive. It is stirring up the pot, creating a rebellion against the gender diversity created in Nature. They are pushing the view of some women who like the homosexuals basically want free sex whenever and with whoever they want. You can help them achieve that goal if you like, but I view that when such goals are obtained, they are destructive to a civilized society. People who embrace it are shortsighted and unable to see down the road to where it leads us.
Obama did the same kind of thing with Health Care. He promised everyone being able to keep their doctor, keep their hospital, keep their plans, have more choices, and premiums going down by $2500. All the Democrats voted it in, pushing it through even on Christmas Eve night, and not a single Republican went on board with it. Now we see that the Republicans were right all along. The plan would lead to an inept government unable to service everyone, fewer doctors, fewer choices, and higher premiums. In the end, our healthcare system has become worse than it was before the law was passed.
There is a reason that most people who grow older tend to become more conservative, and part of it is that they become wiser and more realistic. This is brought about by their experience in life. Young people lack experience and knowledge, so they tend to embrace the emotional ideals of the Democratic party. They also like the idea of the nanny government paying for everything for them because they are use to parents paying for everything. All they have to do is vote to get all the free benefits.
RTC,
I think someone is implying that I wasn’t telling the truth. BTW, two of my conservative male friends were more liberal than I when we were younger. One of them now watches mostly FOX News.
“Elaine – I really would be interested to meet your conservative male friends.”
Why Mr. Schulte: I thought you were married!
RTC – I want to know if they exist. 😉
I am not sure about the rest of the married males on here but there is a saying I live by that has kept me married. ‘A happy wife, is a happy life.’ Personally, any one else’s wife is their problem.
Byron,
“I think many liberal men may like to convince themselves their wives like to work and do so willingly so that they can cover up their own weakness and feelings of inferiority and inadequacy when it comes to making a living.”
I think you don’t know how liberal men think. Besides…not all liberal men think the same way. I could say that I think that many conservative men like their wives to put on aprons, be obedient, remain in the house and do as their husbands tell them to do–in order to mask their own feelings of inadequacy. But I have conservative male friends whose wives worked for most of their lives. With the exception of one male, they all treated their wives as equals–as have my liberal male friends.
Elaine – I really would be interested to meet your conservative male friends.
Please notice the qualifier on the last line of my previous comment. The operant phrase is, “wouldn’t work,” instead of, “can’t work.”
Many of the people I see are disabled, and are sent to me by the Social Security Disability Determination Service for either an initial assessment, or a follow up, which has to be done every three to five years if there is a question about whether the disability is permanent or temporary. I always admire strong women (and men) who stay with a disabled spouse and provide care-giving. Some get little or nothing in return, not even sex in many cases. They stay out of love and a feeling of responsibility. A surprising number of people take the “sickness and in health” part of the marriage vows seriously.
Byron,
That is all over the freaking landscape. That is so devoid of logic it boggles the mind. I don’t know why I bother, but here are a couple of points. First of all, I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of promiscuous sex. Promiscuity is a bad idea all around, for a number of reasons. It is correct that some women work because they want to, and others want to stay home and raise kids. Some women hate the idea of being pregnant and having kids. Everyone is different and has different motivations. The main point is that wherever possible, the woman should be free to make her own choices. It is not the place of somebody she doesn’t even know to tell her she must risk getting pregnant every time she has sex. It is not the place of some man to tell her that she can or can’t do anything, without regard for her wishes.
Whether someone is willing to work or not has absolutely zero to do with their politics, and everything to do with their personality. I cannot even estimate the number of women I have interviewed over the years who are divorced. When I get to the question of asking how come the divorce, the two most frequent reasons given are, “I caught the SOB cheating on me,” and, “The SOB wouldn’t work.”
Chuck – did you ever ask the ‘cheater’ why they were cheating?
Chuck wrote: “That is all over the freaking landscape. That is so devoid of logic it boggles the mind.”
I very much disagree. Byron’s post was very logical and coherent.
Chuck wrote: “I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of promiscuous sex.”
That is a side effect of the philosophies being embraced that make sex about pleasure rather than reproduction in a marriage relationship. RTC also alluded to it in saying that some women want the same sexual freedom that men have enjoyed. I am glad to see that you disagree with promiscuity. Can you agree that having sex purely for pleasure can lead to promiscuity? Homosexuals lead humanity in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. Is it in any way connected to their philosophy about sexual relations and marriage?
Chuck wrote: “The main point is that wherever possible, the woman should be free to make her own choices.”
Everyone is free to make their own choices, but the real question is, what causes people to make the choices that they make. A lot of theology has been written about the concept of predestination and man’s free will. Those who take a predestination perspective argue that our choices are not really all that free. We make choices based upon our inclinations, and our inclinations are based upon several factors, including our environment and how we are taught about things.
Nobody has argued here to make birth control or abortion illegal. I think everyone believes in the legal right to make choices. The difference comes in viewing that choice as a “right,” especially a right that society has a duty and obligation to make available to everyone. My perspective is along the lines of saying that people have the right to make the choice, but they would be wiser not to choose to do those things.
Chuck wrote: “Whether someone is willing to work or not has absolutely zero to do with their politics, and everything to do with their personality.”
Philosophy, politics, and religion all work toward shaping a person’s personality. If a person has a disposition toward laziness, and his religion teaches him that he will go to hell if he is lazy, and that a hard worker is blessed by God, and politics comes along to enact policies that penalize laziness and promote hard work, and especially if it causes laws to be established that define the duties and obligations expected of a husband and force deadbeat dads to accept their responsibility, that can cause the person with a disposition toward laziness to change himself and adopt a better attitude toward work.
STDs are rising in gay and bisexual men according to the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
RTC:
I dont think David M is saying what you think he is saying. My wife would have liked nothing better than to stay home and been a full time mother but it wasnt possible due to some complicated issues. I am pretty sure DavidM is smart enough to know that some women want to work and some are forced to due to factors beyond their control.
She says the same things DavidM is saying and she knows many women who think the same way; that motherhood is a good thing and should be promoted and respected. The surest way to raise good children who are contributing members of society is in a stable 2 parent family with a mother and father.
She also thinks that permiscuous sex denigrates women and she has shown me a video by a doctor [a liberal doctor] who says sex with multiple partners is hard on a woman’s overall health due to the numerous assaults on the immune system caused by multiple partners.
I think many liberal men may like to convince themselves their wives like to work and do so willingly so that they can cover up their own weakness and feelings of inferiority and inadequacy when it comes to making a living.
Maybe they should seek the help of a mental health professional so they can learn to act like a man?
Chuck: “…it takes a strong man to love or be married to a strong woman.”
Exactly, maybe it’s a case of “there but for the grace of God, go I”, but I would have it no other way.
It would be interesting to see which political group uses mental health professionals more than the other and why. That is a study I would help Kickstart.
RTC,
I shudder to think how it would go in a face to face encounter between David and somebody like my late wife, Sib Jackintell, or my youngest daughter. I have no doubt it would not end well.
Contrary to what folks like David claim to believe, it takes a strong man to love or be married to a strong woman. As you correctly point out, David’s philosophy of of the social compact comes from a position of weakness, not strength.
Repugnant to the ideals of freedom and equality
DavidM: Your comment at 4:51 is an example of some of the most eristic reasoning ever to appear on the Turley blog. It is so deeply insecure that it’s almost inappropriate to discuss in a public forum, but better dealt with in private with a therapist.
You seem unable or unwilling to countenance the fact that there are women who don’t want to bear children, or raise children, and can envision happy fulfilling lives apart from a natural role as “breeder”.
The notion that sharing the power to make decisions with women, or acknowledging their right to pursue careers make men into sissies is borne of weakness, and is itself an expression of fear, fear of being weak.
Such views are repugnant.
RTC wrote: “The notion that sharing the power to make decisions with women, or acknowledging their right to pursue careers make men into sissies is borne of weakness, and is itself an expression of fear, fear of being weak.”
That is not even close to what I had in mind about turning men into sissies. My wife is a CPA, and I sacrificed to see that she not only finished college but went on to graduate school to earn her Master’s degree. She worked for several years until our family grew to a size that needed a full time mom to run the household. She guides our house and makes all the decisions and coordinates schedules. She holds the purse strings for both family and our corporation. The conservative concept of a good woman is not found in the Democrat lies about weak cowering women barefoot and pregnant and unable to work, but in the writings of wise Solomon found in the Bible, in Proverbs 31, which describes the virtuous woman as strong, industrious, charitable and adept at business.
RTC wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to countenance the fact that there are women who don’t want to bear children, or raise children, and can envision happy fulfilling lives apart from a natural role as “breeder”.”
Breeder is a derogatory term used by homosexuals against heterosexuals. It hardly has any place here in this discussion. I do not perceive women as breeders. Women simply have a biological function which men lack. Generally speaking, a man needs a woman to be fulfilled in life. There are exceptions. I fully acknowledge that there are women who do not want children, just as I acknowledge that there are men who do not want the responsibilities of a family.
Keebler – thanks for the compliment. 😀
David’,
I didn’t think you were in to judgments.
Paul,
How charming.