This commissioner, a woman, wants to be her real religious self when she prays. If someone forces her to pray a neutral prayer, then that is both violating her free exercise AND establishing a government preferred religion.
What is awesome is that Kennedy and the court appear to agree with that. It's awesome because it is exactly true.
In Kennedy's own words:
"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.
As much as I respect Jordan Sekulow, he is in error in his comments at the end of this article, in my non-lawyer opinion.
(Monica Miller, a lawyer with American Humanist Association) "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...."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," ...
Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion, specifically cited the fact that the town Greece, NY, used all the congregations in their phone book as a list for randomly/systematically selecting the person to pray.
In other words, the court approved of prayer at council meetings so long as the practice was open to and tolerant of everyone on the basis of their representation in the area as determined by their presence in the phone book.
Most important to me, though, is that Scotus said they don't want to be 'religion police'. They voted in favor of free exercise yesterday so long as everyone gets tolerated and the opportunity is presented based on their representation in the population.
Will that mean that at some point in time I'll have to sit through an Imam's prayer BASED ON his representation in my local population? Yes. But, these things are important to me:
1. I don't have to AMEN to his prayer to his foreign god.
2. I'll get some cross cultural training.
3. In our Christian area, I'll get a lot of prayers from a lot of different denominations...some of which will also be cross cultural training, and a few of which, I'll not be able to AMEN.
That the Supreme Court even has the power to tell people where they can pray and cannot pray is scary. How far we have fallen as a nation.
It’s sad that Americans have to ask permission to pray from a group of mere mortals.
I used to go to Al-anon meetings. (stopped going for other reasons but still thought it was good for me) but there was a meeting two blocks from my home that I quit going to because they decided (on a vote when I wasn’t there) not to say the Lord’s prayer at the end but instead the serenity prayer again. Part of the ending is that anyone who wants to can join in the prayer. I stepped out. I got a shocked look from the woman who thought that excluding the Our Father was being all inclusive. Some of these people are just ignorant.
For some reason people think this is limited to prayer in board meetings?
The same 1st amendment covers school prayer!
>>A divided Supreme Court blessed prayer in government meetings yesterday in a landmark ruling that had some Bay State politicians praising the vote — and one overjoyed councilor declaring he’ll recite his Hail Marys louder now.
Somerville Alderman Dennis Sullivan said the ruling will inspire him to be more open in prayer, “but probably not loud-loud” so not to be overbearing.
“We have aldermen who are Jewish and I wouldn’t want to impress my views,” Sullivan added. “But personally I think it’s good. We can use all the help we can get.”
Boston City Councilor Stephen J. Murphy said the high court’s decision is all-American to the core.
“It’s an important part of who we are as a country,” he told the Herald last night. “It’s something that should not be attacked and too often is in modern USA. It preserves the principles we were founded on. It’s our identity. It’s who we are. I think it’s important that it was reaffirmed in the highest court of the land.”
In a 5-4 vote the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a town board in Greece, N.Y., did not violate the First Amendment when it recited a Christian prayer prior to meetings. The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said forcing clergy to scrub the prayers of references to Jesus Christ and other sectarian religious figures would turn officials into censors. Instead, Kennedy said, the prayers should be seen as ceremonial and in keeping with the nation’s traditions.
“The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,” Kennedy said.
But not everybody was counting their blessings.
Cambridge City Councilor Timothy J. Toomey Jr. said they have no prayer prior to their meetings, just a moment of silence. He said he hopes that remains the case.
“We salute the flag and have a moment of silence. If people want to pray, pray privately. That’s what I do,” he said. “I would keep it private. ... That way if people want to they can pray to whatever deity or non-deity they choose.”
Somerville Clerk John Long said he’s never received any feedback, positive or negative, about opening meetings with a nondenominational prayer by the city clerk since the 1980s.
Long said he has the prayer memorized — and now the nation’s highest court ruled he can keep reciting it for years to come.
“Our cause is just; our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great and if necessary foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge as a signal instance of the Divine Favor towards us that His Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy until we were grown up to our present strength had been previously exercised in warlike operations and possessed the means of defending ourselves”
“With hearts fortified by these animating reflections we most solemnly before God and the world declare that exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will in defiance of every hazard with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than
to live slaves.” -Continental Congress, Phila, 1775
“History of the United States: from their first settlement as colonies, to ...” 1826
By Salma Hale, p144
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!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
A first step to re-establish prayer in the classroom?
-PJ