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.
Laser,
You are correct that many men don’t report abuse. That applies to both hetero and homosexual relationships. Men tend to not report abuse out of shame and embarrassment. It’s a guy thing. Just like men are less likely to refer to maps or admit they are lost when driving.
Many women don’t report abuse, but generally for different reasons than men. Most report they were afraid of the abuser. Social psychology researchers believe at least some of that has to do with the fact most women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male. We do know that more women than men are killed by intimate partners/spouses than men.
Funny story. As the old saying goes, “God created man, Colonel Colt made them equal.” One of my friends is a college professor in one of the tougher of the hard sciences. When she was young, she was married to an abusive man, and had her first child by him. One day she had enough, telling him, “You do realize that I can take you out with a head shot at a hundred meters, don’t you.”
He never hit her again. In fact, not long after that, he asked for a divorce. She was no fun any more.
It’s really not a good idea to beat on a woman who grew up hunting and target shooting from an early age.
Paul,
You should know that alloplastic refers to a style of argument in which the subject is twisted around, changed or misrepresented. Plastic refers to malleability. Defending the indefensible, moving the goalposts, and continually blaming the victim has been your (and a few others) style of argument in this (and other) discussions. The almost non-stop use of claims that treat the asymmetrical balance of power between men and women as somehow equal because some women assault or kill people.
And it is correct that offenders of all types use an alloplastic style of reasoning to justify their offenses. Alloplastic defenses are often used by people who are losing an argument. Something I learned in forensics (speech classes, not science).
Chuck – I made my argument early on. Just because more men than women are abusers, does not let the female abusers off the hook. They are still domestic abusers and need to be dealt with. That is not defending the indefensible or moving the goalposts. It is a legitimate topic for consideration. At no point have I blamed the victim
Unless your ‘friend’ was intending to kill her husband in cold blood with a rifle, pistols are usually not effective at more than 50 yards. Not sure how many meters that is, because I never got into the metric conversion thing, but I am pretty sure it is not 100.
Since you already admit that men under report domestic abuse, there is no way to tell if the figures in your study are accurate or not.
Now let us take another part of your post. That is the paternalistic attitude you seem to take towards women in general. I thought liberals thought all people were created equal? Women were the same as men? Isn’t that the whole meme behind the feminist movement? You cannot have it both ways. Either women are equal and have to stand on their own two feet, without your especial protection, or they are not equal and need your especial protection.
Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea to beat on any woman, regardless of her upbringing.
First of all – “alloplastic’ is a great (new) word for moi!
Secondly – I would suggest (in an effort to halt civil war) that both of you guys take a step back and simply let it go.
It would seem that “reading something” that’s not (necessarily) there
is becoming viral.
Today is another day!
I concur that there are (some cases) of men being abused by women that are un-reported (mostly cause it is much harder for men to admit that fact).
Also concur that there are (likely) many more cases of women being abused that are unreported = and (said to say) – not given their proper due by authority.
Touchy subject.
(Otteray – sorry I dared you to enter the fray)!
Laser – not sure that alloplastic is a word that is going to come up frequently in conversation, but I supposed you could work it in. Use it everyday in every way and it will be yours. 😉
BFM,
One lives to be of service.
Paul,
Alloplastic defenses don’t work with me.
Chuck – you seem to be diagnosing at long-distance. Not sure the APA approves of this. Using an alloplastic defense presupposes that I am either an abuser, which you would have no way to know, or I have a narcissistic personality disorder, which the APA has decided in its wisdom to drop from the current DSM. Since I am neither, please stop diagnosing me incorrectly at long-distance and without my permission.
I am egalitarian and could care less how many letters you have behind your name or how high your status, you still put your pants on one leg at a time. When I write something, do not read something into it that is not there.
I was speaking of stalking. While stalking often leads to violence, it does not necessarily so. As I said, men are the violent people in our culture, no one needs a study to know that. Try and keep up, Chuck. Geez!
Anecdotes do not a history, or statistic, make. Suggest you actually read the study of actual data compiled by the DoJ and CDC. Here is the link again so you won’t have to go looking for it.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
They also studied lesbian couples and gay male couples in established relationships. They found that female couples had far lower incidence of domestic violence than gay men. The rate was about the same as heterosexual couples, in that males were more prone to be the violent instigator than a female. It doesn’t matter if the partner/spouse is the opposite or same sex. The dependent variable is gender, not sexual orientation.
Chuck – what I am suggesting to you and you seem to be ignoring is that domestic abuse by women is both under reported and under prosecuted.
Thanks Chuck.
Earlier in this thread I made a guess that women face more threats, stalking and violence than men. This report refers mostly to partner violence. But you don’t have to read more than a few paragraphs into the executive summary to see that the incidence of problems for women are typically several times the rate for men.
The report is not exactly on point for my earlier discussion. But it does tend to support the idea that women face a very different threat environment than men and that they call on the ‘nanny state’ more than men because they face more threats and more threats that become actual violence.
You guys are too fast for my email utility. The courting behavior I was referring to is ‘ sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work’.
My recollection is that Nixon, himself, asked his future wife for a date about 20 times. I wonder how he would have come out on today’s college campuses.
I worked my share of stalking cases, and my family has been stalked by a female stalker. Lesbians can be wickedly jealous. The 2 nastiest cases I worked were both lesbians, jilted by a lover. Madison is the SF for lesbians. But, of course, the most dangerous stalkers are men.
Your point?
A mentally ill parent who kills family members because of delusions or hallucinations is not the same as a brutalized woman who kills her abuser to escape the abuse. The Fallacy of False Analogy.
Chuck – my point is that women kill for a variety of reasons, just like men. One woman from your distant childhood is not all women. There are actually some women who do not kill their spouses or children.
Annie,
It has happened. One of the first murder victims I ever saw was a guy in his late twenties or early thirties. I was still in elementary school, but was a regular down at the morgue. This was a rather handsome man. The only blemish on his face was a small hole just above his left eyebrow. About .22 size hole as a matter of fact. He was known around town for his volcanic temper, and on the occasions his wife was seen in public, she usually had a bruise or two on her face. One time she had a black eye.
One of my classmates in graduate school often said of abusers, “You gotta sleep sometime sucker.”
It was Sunday afternoon and the fellow decided to take a nap on the couch. His wife got his .22 single shot squirrel rifle, held the muzzle about an inch from his forehead and pulled the trigger.
She was indicted and tried for murder. The trial was a big deal in the county, and lasted two or three days. The jury was out less than an hour before bringing back a, “Not Guilty,” verdict.
Chuck – then we have women who kill their entire family.
Paul sez: “What used to be considered normal dating behavior, not only acceptable, but recommended, is now considered stalking.”
********************************************
What a steaming pile of barnyard product! That sounds like the crap I hear from predators when they try to rationalize and explain away what they have done. Exactly like it.
Find the legal definition (Federal) at 18 U.S. Code § 2261A
On this page, you can find the specific criminal stalking laws for each state.
From the Free Dictionary:
Sheesh! I don’t recall harassing a young woman until she commits suicide to be in the normal repertoire of dating behavior when I was young.
Chuck – this is what I was talking about
.
Didn’t we used to call that courting?
I never understood the rules, but wasn’t she supposed to say no three times – no matter what the question?
bfm – I was taught that no meant maybe.
“bfm – I was taught that no meant maybe.”
Well, I think the convention in our area was if she will talk to you on the phone you are supposed to ask again.
If anyone had given me a direct yes in those days I am pretty sure I would have fallen out and required smelling salts. Then I took a summer session California…
bfm – there were so many unwritten rules I finally told one girl that if she wanted to go beyond hand holding, she was going to have to tell me explicitly.
While we are off into Wonderland’s etc.,
How about that heroic cat saving the very young boy from a wayward dog?
Over 8 million views on Youtube….
David continues:
Surprising that, as a evolutionary biologist and scientific gad-about-campus, you’re not aware of the many studies of primates that show that sex is also a social bonding mechanism for humans and apes. This social bonding includes homosexual behavior. Plus, human sexuality was liberated from its strictly reproductive purposes by nature when it allowed us to experience sex outside of the period of estrus for purely recreational or enjoyment purposes. …Well most of us, at any rate.
You’re a big supporter of Intelligent Design; call it nature, evolution, or ID, but somehow man evolved the ability to study his environment and manipulate in amazing ways. This is the basis of human domination of the planet. At some point, mankind figured out several methods of terminating pregnancies
The bottom line is that sociologically, men have enjoyed satisfying sex lives for eons without the burdens of pregnancy.
The homosexual agenda?
Dude, the point you’re trying to make sounds all sorts of messed up. Are you sure this stuff you want to be sharing with us? Remember, the internet is forever.
Your comparison of contraceptives v. cigarettes is wrong. Society ends up paying for the negative health effects of cigarette smoking; society also pays for the care of unwanted children. Sharpen your pencil and figure which is cheaper, condoms or foster-care.
As for reconsidering my discrimination against Christian extremists: never. It’s not unconstitutional and I will stand up anywhere except the Koresh compound prior to the meltdown and declare my “bigotry”.
And if you ask me if I’m a man or a mouse, throw a piece of cheese down on the floor and find out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/solange-knowles-attack-jay-z-how-3535018
Master’s in nursing, is what you’ve said, correct?
David sed;
I don’t see a conflict here, David. Competing interests are measure all the time; for instance, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. It’s true that I oppose late term abortions but you conveniently overlook where I said except when a woman’s health and life are in jeopardy.
You have a pretty funny idea of how to go about affirming something. In state after state after state, republican controlled legislatures have rammed through abortion restrictions that continue to be, for the time being, batted down by the S. Ct. In Texas, they have introduced regulatory measures that have made it impossible for abortion providers to continue to practice. And don’t they allow protestors to get right up on women entering clinics?
If that’s your idea of affirmation, then what are we supposed to think when you brag about how supportive you were of your wife?
Sounds similar to blaming victims.
David, you know very well that Democrats aren’t the ones letting their emotions run away. That’s all on your side. You know another thing Progressives aren’t doing? Shooting their opponents.
RTC: “I don’t see a conflict here, David. Competing interests are measure all the time;”
Which is exactly my point and the point of the Republican party. For some reason, you did not quote what you had said before, so here it is:
RTC wrote: “A man, the unborn, and going further, society, have limited rights in relation to a woman’s reproductive rights. These are competing interests; the woman’s interest is superior in this regard; the Republican Party wants to limit a woman’s right, or curtail it entirely, in some cases.”
So you posed that the man and unborn have limited rights and far inferior rights in relation to the woman’s reproductive rights. You fallaciously argue that the Republicans have some sort of vendetta against women and want to limit or curtail entirely the woman’s rights. I’m just point out how not only is this not true, but you don’t even believe it yourself when we examine what you actually believe about late term abortions. Why would you be against late term abortions if the woman’s rights are always superior? You don’t believe that. As you argue now here, there are competing rights involved, and at some point, you realize that you cannot overlook the right of the unborn to live. At some point in time, you know inside yourself that it just isn’t right to kill the unborn. At that point in time, the right of the unborn to live supersedes the right of the mother to choose what to do with this unborn person inside her. The crux of the disagreements about abortion hinge on when the unborn person reaches that point where his or her right to life supersedes the mother’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The most extreme pro-life person says that right to life exists from the moment of conception. Others consider it happens at implantation on the uterine wall. Some say it is when the heartbeat can be detected. Some have argued that it happens 40 days after conception. Others consider it to happen when the baby first moves. Some say it is not until the baby is actually born and breathes on its own. The SCOTUS said it is when the baby could live on its own without the mother, even if an incubator or other scientific devices are used to aid its ability to live. They also said that this point in time when abortion should be regulated by the States will move earlier and earlier as science advances in knowledge and capabilities.
RTC wrote: “You have a pretty funny idea of how to go about affirming something. In state after state after state, republican controlled legislatures have rammed through abortion restrictions…”
They are affirming the rights of the other parties involved besides the mother. You said it yourself here in this very post, that there are competing rights. Democrats want to consider only the right of the mother and make her will superior to everyone else involved in reproduction. Republicans want to consider the rights of everyone. They do not deny the rights of the mother. They simply recognize mitigation of those rights based upon the rights and interests of others involved. They attempt to have the law reflect all these rights without granting unreasonable powers to one party only.
Women are more likely than men to be the victims of stalking.
From the CDC white paper, “Stalking in America.”
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/169592.pdf
Also refer to the website of forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli.
https://www.ipredator.co/
Chuck – the definition of stalking has changed too hasn’t it. What used to be considered normal dating behavior, not only acceptable, but recommended, is now considered stalking. The definition of sexual harassment on some college campuses is so broad that just reading it out load constitutes sexual harassment.
From the CDC white paper “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence”
This is an older paper, based on a survey done by the Department of Justice and the CDC in 2000. However, longitudinal studies continue to show the percentages and ratios hold fairly steady, so this is still applicable.
Download the full report at the link. PDF warning and it is 62 pages long.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
Chuck – studies have shown the almost 100% of ‘bunny boilers’ are women.
Chuck, thanks for the link to the report on Intimate Partner Violence, but this report was based upon phone surveys. How many men do you think are going to respond to a phone survey and blab about their wives beating them up? Women enjoy talking about that. Not men. You have to take that into account before running off to the races with the results.
For every 3 women murdered by their partner one man is murdered..
Byron, Actually the report I read said the abuse is close to equal if you include scratching and hair pulling but injuries from male abuse are more severe and more likely to need treatment. Men are usually larger and punch hard and the punches often cause broken jaws, blackened eyes and head injuries. Alcohol is often involved.