The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State

[deminks]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/05/3434141/the-supreme-court-just-blew-a-gaping-hole-in-the-wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state/

Town of Greece v. Galloway is the case that proponents of the separation of church and state have feared every since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the Supreme Court in 2006. It strikes at the heart of the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of religious doctrine or belief. And it brings religious conservatives within inches of a victory they have sought for more than two decades. For the sort of people who believe America should be a “Christian nation,” today is a today to celebrate.

To explain, Justice O’Connor was the Court’s leading supporter of the view that government may not endorse a particular religious belief or take any action that could convey such a “message of endorsement to the reasonable observer.” This view placed her sharply at odds with the four other conservatives on the Rehnquist Court. Thus, when O’Connor was replaced with the much more conservative Justice Samuel Alito, most Court watchers expected this prohibition on government endorsements of religion to fall in short order. The most surprising thing about the Town of Greece decision isn’t that begins the process of doing so — it is that it took the Roberts Court this long to reach such a decision.

Though Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Town of Greece does not explicitly eliminate the ban on government endorsements of religion, it strongly suggests that the end of this ban is nigh. As Kennedy explains, this ban derives from a case called County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which “held that a crèche placed on the steps of a county courthouse to celebrate the Christmas season violated the Establish­ment Clause because it had ‘the effect of endorsing a patently Christian message.’” Four dissenters, according to Kennedy, “disputed that endorsement could be the proper test, as it likely would condemn a host of traditional practices that recognize the role religion plays in our society.” One of those dissenters was Kennedy.

Town of Greece is a case about legislative prayer — that is, it is about whether lawmaking bodies can open their session with a prayer that is often, if not always, explicitly Christian. On the surface, Kennedy limits his treatment of the ban on government endorsements of religion to the context of legislative prayer, writing that there was no suggestion in a key precedent “that the constitutionality of legislative prayer turns on the neutrality of its content.” That key precedent is a case known as Marsh v. Chambers, which gave legislative prayers special immunity from the Constitution’s ban on establishments of religion.

Given the fact that legislative prayer already enjoyed special constitutional status even before Town of Greece, supporters of a robust separation of church and state are likely to argue that the ban on government endorsements of religion still exists outside of the context of legislative prayer. They are unlikely to succeed, however, in the long run. There may have been four justices who opposed that ban when County of Allegheny was decided. But there are almost certainly five right now.

(end snip)

I am so tired of hearing that SCOTUS has just overturned something that was put in place many years ago to protect our rights. All of our rights.

[Zorra]

1. Our only viable options for protection from a deranged fascist corporate/religion controlled

nation are either to vote for and elect Democrats who will appoint judges who will at least uphold, restore, and maintain objective legal sanity, or major mass non-violent revolution.

The five fascist justices on the current SCOTUS are a deadly imminent threat and clear and present danger to liberty, equality, justice, and democracy in the United States.

[BlindTiresias]

3. It is likely too late for a SCOTUS-centered reversal

It will take decades to reverse what has been done and by the time a stable democratic majority can be sustained in order to get new justices in these policies will already have done immense damage. There is also the problem of self-reinforcing right wing ideology as the more victories like this they get the less likely a stable Democratic majority is to emerge. In light of this people should start investigating other means to reverse or challenge this stuff because pursuing a better SCOTUS composition is a gamble and one with a decreasing probability of pay off.

[Zorra]

4. I will vote for any Democratic nominee for President just to stop the fascists on the SCOTUS.

That's the one and only reason I need to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are, of course, generally many other reasons to vote for a Democrat for President, but stopping the fascists on SCOTUS from doing further damage is tops on my list.

All we need for a quick fix is for one of the fascists on the Supreme Court to retire and a Democratic president to appoint a progressive judge in their stead, and we will do a great deal to stop this avalanche of current anti-democratic, anti-constitutional jurisprudence

That would not solve all our problems by any means, but it will do major good for humankind and the planet on m any fronts.

[kelliekat44]

65. That is the single issue for me!!! nt

[Gothmog]

75. Agreed

We are one SCOTUS vote away from losing Roe v. Wade. We have already lost the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance limitations

[AlbertCat]

23. The five fascist justices on the current SCOTUS are a deadly imminent threat

They already killed the USA in 2000. They're just embalming now.

[mountain grammy]

35. Well said.

[grasswire]

38. have you read Chris Hedges' latest op-ed?

He calls it "militant" revolution that is necessary.

[GOPee]

80. OH MY FABICATION!

""The five fascist justices on the current SCOTUS are a deadly imminent threat and clear and present danger to liberty, equality, justice, and democracy in the United States."".. Geeeebuz

I don't feel well today and this may have been the straw, but what ever.

REALLY? Do you really feel your liberty slipping away.. drop the pearls Mary, no one has a gun on you. These morons have been doing this shit for years, and years and we are in control of two branches of this Government, after loosing the third branch for concentrating on shit that did more to divide us, than finding what may bringing us together.

We had the world by the gonads and came up with a healthcare program that even we were afraid to read in public before the vote because it was flawed, THATS RIGHT, FLAWED, and everyone on the inside knew it, and it showed. If we did what was right, we would have passed something that even the most hardened opponent would have had to back down when it rolled out.. SINGLE PAYER..PERIOD

Tell me what we can do about this prayer nonsense now, they were always going to win this minor victory, and why fight it with this hyperbole, except to show that at every corner we are so intolerant if someone doesn't do it exactly our way, we scream blood will flow. BS.. Give them their crumbs, and congratulate them, and maybe make a few friends, even among our own flock..

[Logical]

2. Starting now every damn town can now open their meetings.....

With a prayer. Stupid decision!

[Niceguy1]

5. this is not new.

They already have been for the last 60 years..

I dont think the world is going to end over this.

[MynameisBlarney]

6. I don't know about you

But I prefer to keep bronze age mythologies from spoiling my govt.

[Niceguy1]

7. I am more concerned by the dishonest

Politicians and they lies they spread at the meetings then a 2 minute prayer before the session begins

[Arugula Latte]

10. They just start the lying two minutes earlier now.

This is about the very values and founding principles of this country. They are chipping away at every admirable thing about the US and turning it on its head. Subjecting people to government-sanctioned religion is not a trivial issue.

[951-Riverside]

11. I am more concerned about dishonest politicians who use religion to push their agenda

And now I have put up with some overweight corrupt slime bag praying to Jesus, Allah, Satan or Pasta God before every meeting.

If you've ever been to a city council meeting where they pray or pledge allegiance, it gets old very quickly. Ironically they allow prayers at council meetings but won't allow cameras in the supreme court.

[Niceguy1]

24. pledge alligance?

Whats wrong with that? Crazy.

[oldhippie]

27. What do you think pledging allegiance means?

And why should anyone do it?

[951-Riverside]

28. Everything.

Its an unarmerican ritual that intimidates and forces people into pledging to a piece of cloth (Sorry, but this isnt soviet Russia, I should have a choice not to participate without fear of being harassed, ostracized or in some cases fired if I don't) plus its just lip service.

Then there is this...

Matthew 6:6

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you

.

[jeff47]

55. The pledge is 100% backwards

The point of the Constitution is to have a government that is subservient to the people.

The point of the pledge of allegiance is to have people subservient to the government....and then they jammed "Under God" into it in the 1950s just to make it even more wrong.

[progressoid]

64. " under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Well, since none of those things are true, it's sort of meaningless to bleat it out every day.

Doubleplusungood.

[aggiesal]

49. That's actually a great idea ...

We should all go to city council meetings throughout the country
and ask for a prayer from the koran or a buddist prayer or ...
maybe the spaghetti monster, just to show how ridiculous this is.

Just a thought.

[Niceguy1]

73. I have seen both Muslim

And other faiths at our council meetings

[aggiesal]

85. How did it go over? ...

Is your city/county council(s) liberal or conservative leaning?

I'm thinking that having anything other than a Christian prayer
would drive the fundies nuts.

[Niceguy1]

86. nobody cared

we have both on our council. no head exploded. In reality the drama queen fundies are small minority. the ones you really have to watch out for are the quiet ones

[aggiesal]

90. Thanks, ...

I still think it's pretty good idea.

[Logical]

9. Many have stopped because of pressure and worried about....

Lawsuit costs. Now they will not.

[former9thward]

17. Try to stay away from sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court.

They both open with a prayer.

[Logical]

19. being a smart asks or you have a point? nt

[former9thward]

22. The point is local governments have every right to do what the national government does.

It is the same Constitution. But go ahead and file those lawsuits as you alluded to in a post down thread. Lawyers always need work.

[Logical]

25. LOL, because lawsuits never work? Deep thinker? nt

[former9thward]

26. This case was just decided by the SC.

The SC does change viewpoints but not quickly even with changes in members. Especially when the SC itself opens with a prayer. But go ahead. My brothers and sisters need the work.

[Historic NY]

50. All that praying is helping them either...

[adieu]

8. Fine, I'll just show up and demand

a two-hour prayer to my god and savior, Cthtulu. And I won't allow the meeting to begin until said 2-hour prayer is completed. And I'm sure I can recruit some friends to demand a similar 2-hour prayer for Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Hebraic, Zoroasterism, and dozens of other religions. I'm sure we can make the meeting last, oh, about 15 hours before any part of the agenda can proceed.

[951-Riverside]

12. Interesting enough, there is no set time limit of a prayer n/t

[Orrex]

21. You won't be laughing when the stars are right.

Ia! Cthulhu!

[ellenfl]

37. i was thinking the same. doesn't have to be long but could be simultaneous w/xtian prayer. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Excuse me sir!

[Amaril]

93. This literally made me spray tea!

Hope you don't mind if I steal a copy?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. It's not mine. Standard google image search for 'excuse me sir cthulhu'

[ctaylors6]

72. town did have a Wiccan priestess give invocation one month

Also, interestingly, according to the opinion, the plaintiffs themselves "did not seek an end to the prayer practice, but rather requested an injunction that would limit the town to "inclusive and ecumenical" prayers that referred only to a "generic God" and would not associate the government with any one faith or belief.

[Gothmog]

76. You are ignoring the FSM

The Flying Spaghetti Monster needs equal time

[LadyHawkAZ]

13. We're gonna have to grass-roots this one

Get a network of people willing to show up and offer Satanist prayers at every meeting that begins with a Christian one. Or Wiccan, with plenty of pentacles. It only takes one or two per meeting, and hell, it's our RIGHT!

They'll be scrambling for a ban in a month.

[demigoddess]

16. I'd love to see it!!

and see it and see it.

[betterdemsonly]

14. One way we are locked into neoliberal neocon frames is

that nobody talks about the fact that Obama could do what FDR did and appoint extra members to the courts. The number isn't established at 12.

[former9thward]

18. Three misstatements in one post.

1) The SC has 9 members not 12. 2) FDR did not appoint extra members to the court. He was shot down by Congress. 3) Obama could not do it for the same reason. It requires Congressional approval.

[betterdemsonly]

58. Then the neoliberals are going to have to actually pass laws and shit

instead of waiting on the courts. Aren't they?

[former9thward]

81. I think you are right.

[MO_Moderate]

15. Its been going on forever

but now a harmless prayer is going to lead us to being a theocracy?

[Logical]

20. Ahhhh, someone likes this decision! nt

[MO_Moderate]

29. No, someone just doesn't think it's really that big of deal

Our rights are being squashed, the Ukraine, Syria etc... are a mess, we have a huge election coming up in November, and people are all up in arms because others were not stopped from doing what they have been doing for as long as anybody can remember?

Forgive me for not believing "Bless this meeting" isn't the end.

[jeff47]

33. It's not a big deal, but it's the first thing in your list. (nt)

[MO_Moderate]

39. Or, more than likely

It's not a big deal because it doesn't qualify to be included with the first thing in my list.

[jeff47]

42. Apparently you aren't bothering to pay attention.

I'm supposed to leave the room when you pray to open a government meeting. At least, according to the SCOTUS.

Also, they didn't quite get around to explaining how an atheist is supposed to lead a prayer.

[jeff47]

48. Actually, I do, according to the SCOTUS.

It's helpful to actually pay attention to the rulings, instead of what you think they say.

Atheists don't pray, so why care about how we are supposed to lead a prayer?

Because all Americans are supposed to be equal before the law. Not just the Christians.

But hey, there were seats at the back of the bus. She should have just moved.

[MO_Moderate]

57. No, you don't

"...the record here does not suggest that citizens are dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during the prayer, arriving late, or making a later protest."

You don't have to leave the room if you are able to sit there like a mature adult, but you can leave if you cannot.

How in the hell does me not leading a prayer make me not equal to someone else who knows how to lead a prayer?
Your dislike of religious folk is your problem, not theirs.

[jeff47]

60. It's given as the example of acceptable behavior.

I am not allowed to spend the prayer time shouting, for example. I am allowed to leave the room.

How in the hell does me not leading a prayer make me not equal to someone else who knows how to lead a prayer?

Because they are being elevated over you. The fact that you don't realize it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Let's say you are a city councilman. And you never lead the prayer because you're an atheist. You think nobody will notice? You think suddenly your lack of faith won't be a political issue? Remember, "atheist" is the most distrusted group in US politics.

So now you lose your job because you aren't pretending to be a Christian. But hey, there were no guns or threats of jail involved, so it's not a big deal.

[onenote]

68. You're not allowed to spend time shouting when anyone is speaking, prayer or not

I think Kagan's dissent is more convincing than the majority's opinion, but I also don't think (thanks to Kagan raising the issue) that the decision is as broad as some here seem to think it is. Too broad? Yes. But as broad as some think? No.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with your example involving an atheist legislator. Does that legislator want to make an opening statement and is not being permitted to do so? If so, I don't see where the decision would necessarily condone that form of intentional discrimination. By the way, last year, a state legislator from Arizona who is an atheist asked for and was given the opportunity to present an opening "prayer." This is what he said to open the session: “Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads. I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.

This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration,” Mendez said. “But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences. We share the same spectrum of potential for care, for compassion, for fear, for joy, for love

[JoeyT]

67. So many levels of irony in your post.

But the most glaring one is insisting people that don't want to be subjected to the religion of others at a government meeting are the ones that are weak and petty as opposed to the ones that insist that that's totally the place to have a sectarian prayer.

[Agschmid]

82. A jury agreed...

[Logical]

36. Not a big picture person I assume, or really religious. nt

[MO_Moderate]

41. Atheist

And what "big picture" am I missing that wouldn't have already shown itself after all this time?

Am I supposed to believe that since the Supreme Court ruled this way, that now government will force us to pray at gun point?

[Logical]

44. That is a really silly comparison, try again! nt

[Agschmid]

62. You are being too logical... Go figure.

[John1956PA]

74. I am an atheist. Sitting through public prayer does not offend me, but . . .

I wish the SC would have ruled the other way.

I live in a small town where the Christian majority regards atheists as being suspect. A recent flash point occurred a few years back when the town council discontinued the annual December holidays' nativity display because of the threat of a lawsuit by a group advocating the separation of church and state. Out-of-town Christians joined the locals in holding a large vocal public rally where arm-length-sized wooden crosses were waved. The Christians' Facebook page supporting the nativity display garnered strongly worded posts hostile to atheists such as the following:

"I really don't understand , {sic} how they let them win . {sic} It don't [sic] make sense to me when there are so many more Christians out there than non believers. This country was suppose {sic} to be built on freedom of religion, well, they have none but we do and why can't we have our prayers and beliefs? Why do they win all the time? Like I said before if they are offended then go to another city. . . ."

Also, the mayor (a vocal Christian who supported the nativity display) stated that "98% of the citizens were outraged" by the challenge to the nativity scene.

My point is that an atheist in my town (even one who is silent about it) rightfully feels unwanted. A Christian council member wanted to push the nativity display issue to federal court so that the identity of the complainant would be revealed. Apparently, the council member thought that, if council were to call the complainant's bluff by saying "See you in court," the complainant would have the choice of backing down or bearing the brunt of hostile feelings from the Christian majority. I believe that prayer and worship should be kept out of public business. I wish the SC would have followed the approach it took over 50 years ago when it eliminated the reading of Bible verses in public schools.

[AverageJoe90]

40. I don't think it's the end of the world, either, but there's still reason for concern. nt

[MO_Moderate]

43. Such as?

What will this ruling cause our government to now force us into doing?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. At least two of those items are uninteresting to the context of US governance.

[Agschmid]

59. As a gay man when I am persecuted by a religion for simply being me... It is a big deal.

This decision was just a bad one.

[jeff47]

32. Let's rewind to 1860.

Slavery has been going on forever. But now it's a bad thing?

Just because we have done something for a long time does not mean it's right.

[amuse bouche]

69. Nothing 'harmless' about it

[riderinthestorm]

78. Gah! Where have I heard "its just a little prayer"!111!! before??

Hmmm, thinking, thinking...

(cough Rick Warren cough)

[davidn3600]

30. Doesn't Congress always open each session with a prayer?

This isn't not new.

[gcomeau]

31. Ok, someone get on this...

...I expect to hear about the demands for Muslim prayer being held in Arabic occurring in red state government meetings across the country, and then seeing them try to refuse and surviving a court challenge to THAT while maintaining they should be allowed to perform a Christian prayer. That should shut this down pretty damn fast.

[UTUSN]

34. And again and again Anthony KENNEDY demonstrates what a "swinger" he is -- NOT!1 n/t

[mountain grammy]

51. It seems like no big deal, "Bless this meeting in Jesus's name we pray, amen"

First it's a religious prayer before a meeting, then it's a chosen religion's prayer before a meeting, then it's everyone must pray the chosen religion's prayer before the meeting, then it's everyone must practice the chosen religion and it must be taught in all the schools of the land. Those who choose not to practice the chosen religion and send their children to indoctrination, will be barred from the benefits of citizenship and ultimately deported away from the populace, and now the country is pure.
I believe there are powerful forces at work in America who welcome and are working for a pure Christian America. "Intelligent design" and Bible courses are considered basic education, like reading, writing and arithmetic, in many parts of the country. Like my 86 year old aunt said to me the other day, "it's all this religion that's making people crazy."

This is a very big deal.

[Flying Squirrel]

52. Time to start heckling the prayer-leader.

Shout him down, it's called freedom of speech. Just yell "I object" at the top of your lungs and keep it up till they haul you out - then hopefully someone else will take over for you.

[Swede Atlanta]

54. This has been the status quo for years.....

While I don't like it and believe it suggests there is no separation of church and state I am not going to lose sleep over this.

Even as a Christian I believe we should heed Jesus' own words of "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's". That statement may refer more specifically to taxes but it can be understood to be fairly broad. He is suggesting to comply with secular government that it is of this world and not of His kingdom.

But if someone wants to open a government meeting with a prayer I am not going to get all worked up over it AS LONG AS they provide for prayers of any religion from within the community whether that is a Rabbi, a Priest, an Imam, a Monk or an adherent of Satan.

Where I do draw the line and that seems to be generally holding is the separation when it comes to public schools. There are still prohibitions against opening public schools with a prayer, prayer at sporting events, etc. I want to be sure that young people who (a) are forced against their will and they have no other options and (b) are still minors and arguably impressionable are protected against forced religious views.

[jeff47]

56. There were empty seats at the back of the bus.

No reason to make such a big deal about not moving. Besides, it's the way things have always been.

But if someone wants to open a government meeting with a prayer I am not going to get all worked up over it AS LONG AS they provide for prayers of any religion from within the community whether that is a Rabbi, a Priest, an Imam, a Monk or an adherent of Satan.

And screw those atheist bastards.

[Dustlawyer]

61. I NEVER, EVER want to hear a Rethuglican complain about ACTIVISTS Democratic Judges!!!

John Roberts said he would follow legal precedent and then proceeded to preside over the most ACTIVIST COURT EVER! Those corrupt, lying, political hack motherfuckers have made it very clear that they are sticking to a strict partisan agenda and make the law whatever they want, despite centuries of legal precedent!
I hope a Satan worshipper starts leading some of these prayers, then let's see how bad they want them!

[JohnnyRingo]

66. This can end badly for the town of Greece.

The people pushing for a prayer meeting before legislative meetings assume there's no prayer other than Christian prayer. Wait until someone unfurls a prayer rug and asks the group to kneel toward Mecca. That person now has the Supreme Court in his corner, but those offended will suddenly call foul on this religious freedom. I guarantee it.

I always chuckle that religious zealots demand prayer in public school, but the minute a teacher begins teaching Buddhism in class, it'll cause parent's heads to explode in holy furor.

These holy rollers who want religion crammed down everyone's throats in public should watch what they wish for. There are almost as many sects as there are people, and they'll never all agree on one interpretation of their bible.

[dionysus]

84. i live a mile away from there.. it's a small, mostly whitebread 'burb. sigh :(

[Triana]

70. I'm getting awfully sick of these corporatist, dominionist, fascist jackasses. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. The backlash from Conservative overreach is going to be epic.

[HockeyMom]

77. What I learned to do in Catholic School during prayers

While they were saying prayers, I whispered and devoutly looked at the ceiling. "Dear Lord (Four score and seven years ago......), let us pray (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas......). Great practice for all those upcoming tests!

Sorry, you cannot force anyone to say YOUR prayers, even little children.

[Shandris]

92. Exactly.

I'm pagan, but this elicits nothing from me other than a 'oh, interesting'. I long ago learned that prayer, creches, nativity displays and the like mean absolutely nothing. They have the power you allow them to have and nothing more.

[IronLionZion]

79. Just one more Democratic appointee on the court

would make a world of difference in so many of these 5-4 divided cases. GOTV!

Scalia and Thomas are not getting any younger. Obama's appointee needs enough support in congress to override tea party blocking.

[dionysus]

83. OH FFS,Greece is less than a mile from here :( how infuriating, this is the first i have heard of it

[struggle4progress]

87. It's 5-4 so there's not real agreement, just a bare majority

[oneofthe99]

88. What is the difference between this and the Senate opening with prayer?

I always thought it odd the Senate does this

[CrispyQ]

89. There are stinkballs on this court that are not fit to sit on the bench.

This:

I am so tired of hearing that SCOTUS has just overturned something that was put in place many years ago to protect our rights. All of our rights.






on edit: Link to Freedom From Religion Foundation on the ruling.

http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/20600-greece-v-galloway-the-path-forward

[ctaylors6]

91. FYI all 9 justices agreed legislative prayer is OK

No one disagreed with Marsh. They basically disagreed how to apply the Marsh decision to the facts of this case.

Kagan's dissent specifically said, "I agree with the Court's decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), upholding the Nebraska Legislature's tradition of beginning each session with a chaplain's prayer. And I believe that pluralism and inclusion in a town hall can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality; such a forum need not become a religion-free zone."

I'm not sure if many people here haven't read the entire opinion, but it seems like some people think this opinion is making entirely new law allowing legislative prayer. It's applying the existing law upholding Marsh etc to the facts in town of Greece.

The facts, by the way, were that the town used its chamber of commerce kind of town guide for a list of religious institutions. A few townspeople complained that everyone who'd given invocations had been Christian, and subsequently "two prayers were delivered by a Jewish layman, one by the chairman of a Baha'i congregation, and one by a Wiccan priestess." (At least two of those were at the request of the person giving the invocation.) The justices expressed varying opinions regarding the weight of those subsequent speakers.

I'm truly not stating an opinion of my own here, but I get the feeling a few people who have commented on this case have not read the entire opinion and may not realize what the dissenters actually said.