Are you an atheist? Get mad at the US supreme court. Believer? You, too

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/us-supreme-court-government-prayer-religious-americans

Government prayer will continue. But religious Americans might have more to fear from this week's decision than atheists

Anthea Butler
theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 May 2014 11.30 BST


Susan Galloway was one of two women to file suit against her town council for its pre-meeting prayers. They lost, but so did we. Photograph: Adam Fenster / Reuters

Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an atheist, felt uncomfortable sitting through the predominately Christian prayers that opened every town meeting in Greece, New York. For years they lived through their discomfort. Then they asked that the town meetings start instead with non-sectarian prayers that did not explicitly reference specific religious ideas. Eventually, the town council told both women that they could stand in the hallway or stick their fingers in their ears.

Instead, they filed suit.

This week, the US supreme court ruled, 5-4, in favor of the town of Greece, and opened up a new battlefield in the culture wars. What Galloway and Stephens experienced will unfortunately continue to occur in many communities throughout the country – those who are part of a minority religious tradition in a particular locale should just "put up or shut up" and wait their turn.

The part of upstate New York in which Greece is situated was historically known as the "Burned-Over District" in the 19th century for speed with which residents accepted (and some times quickly rejected) a diversity of religions. That diversity, which included Mormons, Millerites, Spiritualists and Evangelicals in the 19th century, looks different in the 21st: according to a 2010 survey by the Association of Religious Data Archives, those who are unaffiliated with a religious tradition made up the largest group in the county – more than twice as many people claimed no religion as said they were Catholic.

more at link

[Silent3]

1. Fuck "non-sectarian prayers" too.

How about just getting on with the business of government without the religious posturing?

[cbayer]

2. In total agreement.

Having sat through way too many of them at various legislative functions, I think they should be completely eliminated.

They serve no purpose but to divide, imo.

SCOTUS made a serious mistake here.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Yep, that would run afoul of non-theistic religions as well.

Not everyone has a deity.

[Brettongarcia]

4. But if a religious prayer is allowed? A prayer or statement against religion should be allowed too.

Or an objection to the stated religion. So long as it comes from the Council too?

By the way: there are now 6 Catholics on SCOTUS; and 3 Jews. How might that influence things?

[cbayer]

5. I think the religious makeup of the court definitely comes into play here.

The majority were exclusively Catholic, while the Jewish members voted against it. Sotomayor also voted against it, though he personal religious beliefs are not entirely clear.

Here is a pretty good article that addresses that:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-religion-catholics-jews-20140505-story.html

[Goblinmonger]

10. And the political make up.

Pretty clear 5-4 split down party lines.

[Leontius]

6. Seven justices not nine.

[trotsky]

8. Kind of difficult for a 7 justice court to render a 5-4 decision, isn't it? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

9. On the SCOTUS?

Is it 1814 right now? Because it was upped to 9 (after a bunch of back and forth with a max of 10) in 1869.

[Leontius]

11. Sorry hit post my reply too quick

I don't think Thomas or Breyer state their religion but I could be wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Ah. Gotcha.

I've hit "Post my Reply!" too quickly a number of times.

[trotsky]

7. Not the first time the USSC has taken a shit on the Constitution.

Won't be the last.

[struggle4progress]

13. I think the plaintiffs were correct and that the Court of Appeals decision should have been upheld

but as Mr Dooley said, no matther whether th'constitution follows th'flag or not, th'supreme coort follows th'iliction returns -- and it does so for many years after whatever election put particular judges on the bench

This 5-4 opinion of the Court is cobbled together in a peculiar way, with different justices holding different views. The views of Thomas and Scalia are particularly noxious, resisting incorporation of the Establishment Clause against the states (via the Fourteenth Amendment) on originalist grounds involving laws at the state level in 1789, and indicating some uncertainty about whether the Establishment Clause actually forbids the establishment of a state church. Thomas and Scalia, it seems, would be comfortable if Utah made Mormonism its state religion or if Texas officially adopted the Southern Baptist faith. Equally pernicious IMO is their stance that to the extent coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that counts -- not the "subtle coercive pressures" allegedly felt by respondents in this case, which simply means Thomas and Scalia are not in any fashion concerned by the possibility of a state government agency exerting subtle coercive pressure on people to conform religiously, so long as there is no provable legal coercion. The 1984 and 1988 elections continue to echo

As a general rule, I hold the view that one ought to pick one's battles, and that a certain indifference to noisy blowhards can sometimes reduce their idiotic posturing, by depriving them of the attention that loud controversy brings, but I did not read GREECE v GALLOWAY with joy

[cbayer]

14. I agree with you about picking your battles and ignoring noisy blowhards.

It often just gives them the attention they are looking for. It also gives them the opportunity to win, as they have here, and that is a big step backwards and will certainly lead to a viral spread of prayers in places that were previously avoiding them.