Supreme Court Upholds Prayer at Public Meetings

[octoberlib]

Supreme Court Upholds Prayer at Public Meetings
BY PETE WILLIAMS
Government meetings can include an opening prayer without running afoul of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Monday.

The court ruled in favor of the town of Greece, N.Y., a Rochester suburb that has opened its monthly public meetings with a Christian prayer since 1999. Two residents, one Jewish and the other atheist, claimed that because the prayers were almost always Christian, the practice amounted to government endorsement of a single faith.

The Supreme Court last considered the issue of government prayer in 1983, ruling that the Nebraska legislature did not violate the Constitution by opening its sessions with a prayer from a Presbyterian minister.

But the challengers in the New York case argued that the meetings of the Greece town board were different, because members of the public who sought action from the board were legally required to attend and were not simply part of a passive audience — drawing attention to themselves if they declined to participate in a prayer that was contrary to their believes.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

[unblock]

1. normal court analysis weighs pros and cons

usually the only cases the court needs to get involved in are questions where there's no clear-cut, obvious answer, often because there's an infringement on both sides. so they have to develop a standard e.g., freedom of speech is not absolute, the government can restrict it in cases of libel and slander, inciting riots, etc.; but they can't restrict it simply because they don't like it.

obviously starting a public meeting would constitute a bit of an establishment of sorts and infringe on the religious liberties of those who disagree with the prayer. as against this, we have... uh, nothing.

what are they thinking is the compelling government interest in starting with a prayer, that is somehow sufficient to overcome the obvious problems?


clearly, they took another approach, simply being dismissive of the infringement and establishment problems.