FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 05/06/2014 5:08:04 AM PDT by xzins
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities and towns across America can continue praying at public meetings.
Monday's 5-4 decision centers on an action that dates back to the nation's founding in 1774, when the first Continental Congress opened with Christian prayers.
Two-hundred and forty years later, however, America is much more religiously diverse. That is part of the reason an atheist and Jew challenged prayers at public meetings in the town of Greece, New York.
They claimed the prayers were mostly Christian, made them uncomfortable, and amounted to coercion.
But in the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned against courts becoming censors of religious speech.
"Government is prohibited from prescribing prayers ... In order to promote a preferred system of belief or code of moral behavior," Kennedy wrote.
"It would be a few steps removed from that prohibition for legislatures to require chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere," he continued.
Meanwhile, the implications of Monday's ruling extend across the country.
For instance, picturesque Carroll County, Maryland, with its farmhouses and rolling hills, seems like a peaceful place. But there's a storm brewing at the intersection of faith and politics and it's drawing national attention.
A group of residents sued the county because the commissioners' opening prayers were only Christian. A federal judge agreed, temporarily barring the board from praying in Jesus' name.
The injunction didn't sit well with one of the commissioners.
"I think that is an infringement on my freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Carroll County Commissioner Robin Frazier told The Baltimore Sun. "I think it's a wrong ruling. But out of respect for my colleagues, I'm not sure how strongly they feel about it, I'm willing to go to jail over it."
Commissioner Frazier also defended her stance on Fox News.
"I said that I pray in Jesus because that's how the Bible instructs us to pray," Frazier said. "John 16:24 says, 'Hitherto have you asked nothing in my name, ask and you shall receive that your joy may be full.' That's Jesus speaking."
After the residents' lawyers filed a motion for contempt, the county, the commissioners, and their legal team went silent.
Commissioner Frazier, Carroll County, and their legal team all declined CBN News's requests for interviews. Although they remain tight-lipped about the issue, people in and around the county had strong opinions about the matter.
"Congress does it so it's okay," one man said.
"I agree 100 percent - yeah, I do," Westminster, Maryland, resident Susan Miller said.
But Woodlawn, Maryland, resident Rachael Yost viewed the matter differently.
"I think that's the part that makes it feel very specific to Christianity. If it was just a generic everyone pray to some higher power, that'd be alright," Yost said. "But (that) automatically excludes me from what's going on."
"This isn't about atheism being pushed down someone's throat," she continued. "This is about being inclusive to everyone, including Christians."
Monica Miller, a lawyer with American Humanist Association, represents the residents, which include a practicing Catholic. She said the Supreme Court ruling won't make much of a difference in the Carroll County case.
"It looked like the town (Greece) was making an effort to be all inclusive, and it seemed as though, although a majority of those prayers ended up being Christian, there were others," she said.
"In this case if the county decided to completely change its practice and do something exactly like the town of Greece perhaps that would be okay," she added.
Jordan Sekulow, with the American Center for Law and Justice, disagreed.
"This idea that we're going to have prayer, but it can't be sectarian prayer is now out the door," Sekulow told CBN News. "That is a big deal for people when you talk about praying in Jesus' name."
"What the court said today is if you're going to have prayer, and there's a Christian praying, they can absolutely close their prayer in Jesus' name," he continued. "So, we're not going to make that distinction anymore. So I think that will have an impact on a number of cases."
“Free Exercise” for me but not for thee???
Oh goodie, the SCOTUS ruled we actually DO have a first amendment! Thanks for “letting” us have our constitution.
This is all about “In Jesus’Name”. A local nursing college had been using our sanctuary for their graduation, but two years ago they asked us to remove the cross and not to mention Jesus in the closing prayer. I told them that - for me - without the name and power of Jesus it was not a prayer, just noise. They found another “church” for their graduation.
There is power (and division) in that name!
Maybe, but the plain words of the Constitution do not state that the right to the free exercise of Chrisitianity or Judaism are protected. The right to free exercise of RELIGION is what is protected.
You REALLY don’t want government to be the judge of what is true and false religion. Don’t forget, laws can change. The religious makeup of the population at large can change. What if atheists, for instance, become politically dominant. What if the atheist-dominated government decides that ALL religions are false and effectively repeals the First Amendment?
Admittedly, such hypotheticals may seem implausible, but do you really want government to have the power to determine religious truth? The only real solution is the one that the Founders gave us - the plain text of the First Amendment. This plainly protects ALL religions, whether or not they are true or false ones.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities and towns across America can continue praying at public meetings.”...........
Seems this was a “no brainer” decision as the 1st Amendment had already provided the “freedom”. Now we need to address the millions of other places that this same freedom is being blocked.
There are religions, cults and political systems....and you say all of them fall under that umbrella. That simply can not be.
Boy, is the Left having a foot-stomping hissy fit over this today.
One of my local news stations interviewed one of the TWO plaintiffs (out of 96,000 people in Greece, NY) who huffed and scowled before barking into the camera that “obviously a lot of these Justices don’t care about MINORITY RIGHTS!”
And you are content to allow the government to have the power to distinguish between them? That’s not very smart; government may not always get it right, you know.
“Two-hundred and forty years later, however, America is much more religiously diverse”
Apparently the constitution is now invalid because of diversity.
LOL! Great catch, Viennacon!
Wish I'd thought of that
Buddhism is really more of a philosophy, like confucianism, although there are definitely elements and sects that are religious since they fuse Buddhist teaching with Hindu divinity tales. Wicca is just BS pretending to be centuries old when in fact its younger than Mormonism. It is unashamedly evil. You no more have to let Wiccans in than Oklahoma has to allow that satanic monument to be built.
However, you do have to draw a line somewhere. Look at the satanist monument in Oklahoma. There is a degree to where a ‘religion’ is essentially a base evil practice with no place in civil society. Satanism falls under this catagory.
As a matter of courtesy and respect for others, I would have no problem sitting thru a prayer offered by a Buddhist monk or a Jew. I’d have more problems with a Muslim, but again - as a matter of courtesy and respect for others - I’d sit through it without complaint. I don’t believe Mormons are Christians, but I lived in Utah for years and was never offended when Mormons prayed around me.
While an RN, my wife would sometimes ask an ill patient if it was OK for her to pray for him or her, and no one ever said no. Most people understand respect for others religious beliefs. Only a small handful attack Christians who pray...
“Two hundred and forty years later, however, America is much more politically diverse... so its time to ban all political speech and install Obama as king. The government knows best.”
I’d also have no problem sitting through prayers from Jews, Hindus etc. I would have a problem with Satanists and Wiccans.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
>>Buddhism is really more of a philosophy, like confucianism, although there are definitely elements and sects that are religious since they fuse Buddhist teaching with Hindu divinity tales. Wicca is just BS pretending to be centuries old when in fact its younger than Mormonism. It is unashamedly evil. You no more have to let Wiccans in than Oklahoma has to allow that satanic monument to be built.
There needs to be some parameters established — too loose and you end up with Satan Worshipers and Scientologists. Too tight and you end up with nothing.
I should read before posting (I am of course the first to ever do that here) — islam is a political ideology parading in the cloak of religion. It is no more religion than the democrat party.
Until, of course, Muslims (for instance), become a majority, take over the government, and define any belief system other than their own as “base evil” and outlaw it. We REALLY don’t want to grant government the power to control religious expression, even if it’s religious expression we disagree with. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, exists to reign in government. That’s a good thing; don’t give it up so easily.
Again, think in terms of what you would want to have protected if some other religion became predominate. Would you want another religion to define the display of crosses as evil, for instance? Another religious group might consider a cross to be just as offensive as you consider a statue of Satan to be. Would you be willing to give up your expression of your Christian beliefs because the majority of civil society considers them to be “base evil”? I would think not, nor should you have to. Similarly, as offensive as we find the religious expression of satanists, it is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, that’s why we have the First Amendment; if only non-offensive religious expression, speech, print articles, etc. were protected, there would be no need for a First Amendment.
The line comes at coercion. Religious expression should be protected so long as there’s nobody forced to give up their rights to allow the expression. Obviously, human sacrifice would force some people to give up their right to life. Coerced prayer would also be a violation of religious freedom. I don’t include things like a prayer before a public meeting or a prayer in a school setting. I mean a situation in which if you fail to pray you will be arrested, beaten, killed, etc.
On the other hand, you, or any other Christian, are not FORCED to go look at that statue in Oklahoma. If it truly is that offensive to you, you are free to move to another city where there are no statues of Satan, or you can just avoid going to the location where that statue is located. Similary, with the type of prayer at question in this SCOTUS case, nobody is coerced. Anyone at these meetings can simply decline to participate in the prayer. Therefore, these prayers are protected by the First Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.