-27 votes

Jesus. This Is A Disappointing Supreme Court Ruling.

Reporting from Washington—

The Supreme Court said Monday that city councils and other public boards are free to open their meetings with an explicitly Christian prayer, ruling that judges may not act as "censors of religious speech" simply because the prayers reflect the views of the dominant faith.

The 5-4 decision rejected the idea that government-sponsored prayers violate the Constitution if officials regularly invite Christian clerics to offer the prayers.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-cou...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state...

War on Religion:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.” By Ron Paul December 30, 2003

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Just one of several issues on

Just one of several issues on which Ron Paul and I diverge. IMO, the Constitution makes very clear that religion is not to be given favor or suppressed for individuals, but government cannot promote any religion. That division has been violated so many times it's now considered "TRADITION"!

Promote and establish are different.

There's nothing preventing the government from promoting that which is good, i.e. "promote the general welfare". It is not to govern into existence via any federal law any church's denomination or prevent by any federal law the people's free exercising of it. There is no division as you claim.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

The text reads: "Congress

The text reads: "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."

Is the defense of this unfortunate Supreme Court ruling basically the following... Since these city council members are not members of Congress, they are free to do whatever they want, even while they hide their faith behind the power of government to practice personal religious beliefs?

I thought people didn't like it when government "disrespected" their religion by 'legalizing' gay marriage? I thought the whole point was to get government out of religion and get religion out of government?

People prematurely celebrating this ruling aren't thinking this through very carefully.

I see it differently

I think the founders thought that all religions should be accepted, and none given favor or special privilege over another.

So if someone wanted to open a city council with a Christian or Islamic or Hindu or whatever prayer/mantra... I would support it if that's what the local community wanted. It's the peoples right to open up their meeting with whatever. Hell even if they wanted to bring a goat on stage and pray to him...

Free speech shouldn't be inhibited. Live and let live. And if you don't subscribe to the religion than you don't have to hear or participate in the opening prayer.

Although I agree that with LEGISLATION proposed... THAT shouldn't strictly be rooted or based upon a specific religion (like governing by a religious code)... It should be rather rooted in common moral and logical sense, and in particular based on the guidelines of the constitution of course.

By the way, just to clarify where I'm coming from a bit...

I'm studying physics in school right now, have always had great faith in science, and have been raised in a spiritual household - but overall I've been raised to be inquisitive and agnostic.

And from my point of view I'm seeing this more as a free speech issue than a religious issue.

So I suppose that means that if the town council has a majority

who are Muslims, then they can choose to open their meeting praying to Allah.

Doesn't the God they choose to pray to constitute a selection of religion by the State, and isn't that an imposition of religion by government instead of freedom of choice.

Anyone cheering this decision can sit back and relax as the demographics of the US change over the coming decades with Caucasians reproducing much more slowly than other groups. Talk about opening a Pandora's box.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Agree completely

One's personal religious beliefs have no place in government, regardless of "tradition." Because these representatives are on the job to carry out a function they were elected to do, their personal religious beliefs cannot be carried out using the power of government to disguise their intent.

More dangerous precedent has been established.