Christian Prayer is on a Comeback. Supreme Court Rules it OK at Government Functions.
Empty SCOTUS Bench
Christian bashing is a new past time in the USA.
It just has long been the case that it was politically correct to attack Christian prayers at meetings. Christian prayers were banned as invocations. Christian prayers were taking out of our public lives. Well the Supreme Court of the United States of America just recently ruled it was OK to begin a public governmental meeting with a Christian prayer.
Greece v. Galloway, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-696 is the case in point. (Greece is a town in New York of about 100,000 that starts meetings with prayers, most of which are Christian)
Here is a reasonable article on the case at hand and some history http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/5/supreme-state-church.html
Please note that every case has its own particular settled facts. Here a Jewish person and an Atheist found the opening prayers to a local government public meeting made them uncomfortable the town invited other beliefs to do the invocation. Although there were few in the town. (strange a town that size with no Mosque or Temple but apparently there were none.)
So this guy's name is no longer illegal to say at public meetings.
So children in school can listen to rap music by gangsters but not a prayer. Something is wrong here.
Not for Children
A strange distinction was made in the case of public schools because of the young minds was the suggestion. So the decision does not really effect prayer in public schools.
Coercion versus uncomfortable seemed to be the tempo of the decision. Which boiled down to the truth that it is inappropriate to proselytize and government meeting. No one has ever even taken a case like that to SCOTUS so it seemed strange to make the distinction in this case at all. Obviously using government funds to try and convert someone to a religion is violative of the United States Constitution.
So those Christians can still no longer try to convert folks through the government and they can still no longer invoke any secular prayers at High school graduations. Well in fact they still can. It is just that it can still be stopped by vigilance.
So the standard test is that you cannot force your religion on someone in schools or public meetings by the government. That means you cannot mention it. Because in schools students are to stupid to determine things for themselves and it makes some parents uncomfortable..
I suppose Christians still need to get home before getting just a little RESPECT.
Did you know?
Were you aware that SCOTUS are called the "supremes"?
For several decades now courts have been knee jerk ruling that anything to do with religion cannot be done on government property. Now that is just a nonsense look at our constitution. Some courts rule that any involvement is coercion. Well they cannot do that now. Our first 5 presidents were drafters of that constitution. And each of them were sworn in on a bible and had a Christian invocation at their swearing in ceremony. Clearly they did not contemplate absolutely no use of government money, time or property for Christianity. And let us remember that the Supreme Court Chief Justice is who does the “swearing in” on a bible.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Yes folks that is what all the hoopla is about. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion is how we got to “no prayers in school” – How did we do that?
That temple in the far distance is named for Vishnu and it is a public park.
Speech is free except when it is religious.
Politics of Justice.
The split of conservative versus liberal
Those are tough labels for Supreme Court Justices. But they are somewhat accurate. In this matter the court was divided straight down these label lines. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotameyer and Kagan all dissented and wrote a separate guiding but not binding opinion for us to learn from. Those four were appointed by either Clinton or Obama.
So it would seem we are a nation divided but with a constitution that does not prohibit prayer in government. End of story, for now. However we have four Justices who think otherwise. They think that somehow Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion means that Atheists can go through life never being made to feel “uncomfortable” but Christians should be made uncomfortable.
Cliffs and boulders
Precedence and the Christian
US common law and a problem
The way our legal system works to a large degree is that our courts interpret the statutes passed by legislatures. Then they right an opinion on that statute and that opinion becomes part of that application of that law. SCOTUS interprets the founding law – the constitution. So when they make an opinion it becomes part of the application of that law. The problem arises when it gets whittled down to something different all together. So as we can see 200 years of whittling has completely changed this portion of the first amendment. Many of us would like to move forward and start unwinding the 200 years of precedence and get back to basics, liberals do not want that at all.
Remember here that we are not talking huge radical swings but rather small swings in decisions. So this is not a call to arms for anyone. It simply is putting it closer to strict construction views of our founding documents.
For the Christians
This is huge. Not because it gave Christians something fantastic and new but because it stopped the madness. It did not reverse holdings and precedent about normal stuff like Nativity scenes or crosses at government cemeteries or memorials but it began the bringing us back to normalcy.
Plus it sends a clear message that just because it is Christian does not mean it is banned from public life.
Now it sure seems to me that this other portion of the 21st amendment is ignored when it comes to Christians.
Here is where it really rubs wrong: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,,,,,,,
Speech should not be prohibited by anyone anywhere. So why is religious speech denied to those who work for the government? Because it makes atheists uncomfortable? Clearly it is not prohibited by the constitution. So why do the supremes do it with impunity?