Ship of Fools: Greece is the word...

Thread: Greece is the word... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027344

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the prayers which begin each council meeting in Greece, NY are not unconstitutional.

Does this mean the end for the seperation of Church and State?

S-E

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Socratic-E, this subject is already under discussion on the 'Should Satanists . . . ' thread.

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :

No, they're quite different.

George is asking people's opinions on the rights of Satanists.

If you read the article I linked to it concerns a decision of the Supreme Court. I am asking for some enlightened discussion on the possible implications.

For example: Could a public school use it as justification for incorporating prayer into the morning assembly?

And just how did the Judges square their decision with the Constitution?

Is it the thin (or perhaps very thick) end of the wedge?

S-E

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think it's a wretched decision and moves us in exactly the wrong direction. We've been working on getting the fake Christianity Lite™ pseudo-religion out of our public life, and now the SCOTUS has brought it roaring back. At this time Christianity Lite™ serves primarily to tell you you're not "in" if you're not someone who can pray the pseudo-prayers. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, if you're not with us, you're agin' us! What better way to make people Not Like Us™ to realize it's not their country, it's ours.

Have I mentioned I hate this decision?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It always bemuses me to read this stuff about getting rid of religion from the public sphere. How intolerant do you really want to be over there in the US?

Can I have an answer to this question: What does 'under God' mean to you?

And what does the constitution actually say, in words, about religious practice?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I have an answer to this question: What does 'under God' mean to you?

"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance when I was a boy during the red scare of the '50s. It meant exactly the kind of thing that MT indicates above.

--Tom Clune

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Can I have an answer to this question: What does 'under God' mean to you?

I appreciate you aren't addressing me, but what the expression "under God" or its equivalent (wherever it manifests in the public domain) means to me is :here's another opportunity to blight emotional and social development and provide fodder for the wingnuts to further entrench themselves in their anachronistic Utopia.

I find myself completely in agreement with MT's post above.

▲

(x-post with tclune)

[ 07. May 2014, 10:52: Message edited by: passer ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I believe the establishment clause of the First Amendment applies only to the First Amendment not to state governments. The Supreme Court was wrong to begin the practice of incorporation which the 14th Amendment could have done but did not. Furthermore, the Warren Court disregarded over a century of court decisions when it removed prayer from schools.

I agree such prayer is banal. However, state and local governments should be free to offer such prayers unmolested by the federal government. State and local governments should be able to decide who if anybody should offer the prayer. They should be free to have a Satanic chaplain if they so desire.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I believe the establishment clause of the First Amendment applies only to the First Amendment* not to state governments.

Why only the establishment clause? Wouldn't the same general logic apply to the free exercise, free speech, free press, and peaceable assembly clauses?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Supreme Court was wrong to begin the practice of incorporation which the 14th Amendment could have done but did not. Furthermore, the Warren Court disregarded over a century of court decisions when it removed prayer from schools.

If you're going to be upset about incorporation, your ire is better directed at the Taft Court (which incorporated the free speech and free press clauses) or the Fuller Court (which incorporated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment). By the time Earl Warren started his tenure the doctrine that states weren't allowed to violate the rights of their citizens in ways which the federal government couldn't was already well established.

--------------------
*I'm assuming you mean "federal government" here.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

passer wrote:

quote:
...here's another opportunity to blight emotional and social development and provide fodder for the wingnuts to further entrench themselves in their anachronistic Utopia.

Wasn't the separation of church and state instituted precisely so that the wingnuts (those like The Pilgrim Fathers) could get on with being wingnuts, safe in the knowledge that a state church could then have no say in the matter?

It's not really for me to comment on US constitutional matters from afar - I'm a strong believer in people sorting their own governments out. But how has "separation of church and state" morphed into no performance of something from one sphere in the other? Why is a prayer in the public domain counted as "church"? I fully appreciate why you might not wish to do it, but that is surely arguable under different criteria (of which mousethief's sound reasonable to me) - ?

And given your recent problems with the Catholic hierarchy actually following a rigorous separation of church and state, are you sure you have really thought this one through?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Indeed...I'm against incorporation period. Religion is the topic of the OP. Also, Hugo Black did begin eroding the rights of state and local governments a few years before Earl Warren became chief justice. Coincidently, the key opponent of incorporating the establishment clause was an Austrian Jew who was one of the founders of the ACLU and a trusted advisor to FDR.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed...I'm against incorporation period.

Doesn't that position effectively write both the Privileges or Immunities clause and the Due Process out of the Fourteenth Amendment? You seem to be going even further than the Slaughterhouse Cases in that regard.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, Hugo Black did begin eroding the rights of state and local governments a few years before Earl Warren became chief justice.

Well before Hugo Black, as my previous citations demonstrate. Justice Sanford was eroding the "right" of state and local governments to censor speech and the press before Hugo Black was ever appointed. I also take issue with your position that governments possess rights. Individuals have rights, governments have authority.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I don't see how. The 14th Amendment simply guarantees that all privileges and immunities granted to one citizen of a state is granted to all of them. No citizen has a right to pray at a town meeting. People elected to the legislature or council usually decide if they want to have a benediction and a protocol for procuring folks to give the benedictions. For instance, the state legislature assigns each member a day or two where they are responsible for the benediction. The member can either give the benediction themselves or ask one of their constituents to do it. Plus, nobody has a right to attend a public meeting and hear only things with which they agree.

As to your second, rather pedantic point, Hugo Black began the assault on the rights of state and local governments with regards to the public role of religion. Again, the OP was about religion. I was talking about religion. So...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see how. The 14th Amendment simply guarantees that all privileges and immunities granted to one citizen of a state is granted to all of them. No citizen has a right to pray at a town meeting.

If the state has the authority to suppress prayer it doesn't like, as you assert, doesn't that cut into the free exercise clause? Or does free exercise not count as a "privilege or immunity" under your formulation? Of course, most would argue that compulsory recitation of government composed prayers is an even bigger invasion of individual liberty, but you seem to support that as well. Is there any limit to the degree the state can tinker with its citizen's religion, in your estimation?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

And here we see why it's such a terrible decision. Good analysis, including this:

quote:
Al Bedrosian, a member of the Roanoke County’s board of supervisors, was sufficiently emboldened by the majority opinion to announce that he would seek to impose a Christian-only prayer policy.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian on Monday night, adding that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?” he asked.

Indeed. Asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, Bedrosian candidly replied that he likely would not.

Basically, the Greece decision allows people to decide by "democratic" vote which religions count as really American.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... Basically, the Greece decision allows people to decide by "democratic" vote which religions count as really American.

What is the logic of arguing that doesn't follow from the basic concepts of democracy. If 51% vote that the organs of state be Christian, Jewish or Islam, or for that matter Protestant or Catholic, to a true democrat, shouldn't the will of the people prevail?

If not, why not?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see how. The 14th Amendment simply guarantees that all privileges and immunities granted to one citizen of a state is granted to all of them. No citizen has a right to pray at a town meeting.
If the state has the authority to suppress prayer it doesn't like, as you assert, doesn't that cut into the free exercise clause? Or does free exercise not count as a "privilege or immunity" under your formulation? Of course, most would argue that compulsory recitation of government composed prayers is an even bigger invasion of individual liberty, but you seem to support that as well. Is there any limit to the degree the state can tinker with its citizen's religion, in your estimation?

You must know of some religious sect that lists giving banal benedictions at public meetings few attend as one of its rites. Now, let's look at what you are arguing. You are arguing that if a committee of the state legislature invites one speaker to make a presentation before that committee but doesn't invite everybody in the entire state to speak before the committee that the committee has infringed on the free speech rights of everybody else in the entire state. If a politician sits for an interview with a reporter but does not sit for an interview everybody who calls themselves a reporter than the freedom of the press has been infringed. And, if some people are permitted on the floor of the legislative chamber but others are not the rights of those not permitted on the floor of the legislative chamber have had their right to assemble violated. Oh the horror.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No citizen has a right to pray at a town meeting.

Actually I was responding to your assertion that town meetings have the right to prevent attendees from praying, even if they do so in a non-disruptive manner.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Anybody can pray anytime and anywhere provided they aren't disruptive. How disruptive is defined in a meeting under parliamentary rules will be up to the discretion of the chair. Silent prayer would not be disruptive. It would also be unnecessary to say one has a right to silent prayer. What goes on in one's mind is between oneself and their deity if they have one.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... Basically, the Greece decision allows people to decide by "democratic" vote which religions count as really American.
What is the logic of arguing that doesn't follow from the basic concepts of democracy. If 51% vote that the organs of state be Christian, Jewish or Islam, or for that matter Protestant or Catholic, to a true democrat, shouldn't the will of the people prevail?

If not, why not?

Democracy is not just about 50%+1. It also requires protecting the rights of minorities to fully participate in the political process, so that they have a shot at persuading others to join them, and so become majorities. This requires equality. To proclaim "America is a Christian nation, so others are not really Americans" is intimidation and an attempt to deny that essential equality.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

If you want a society where all minorities are protected and there is freedom of speech, give me a Christian nation any day. Has anyone realised what it's like in an Islamic country or a country that is atheistic?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, a secular state is the best solution, since it protects all religions and no-religion. I would have thought that the UK is getting close to this position; incidentally, secularism ≠ atheism. There are plenty of Christian secularists around.

[ 09. May 2014, 07:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I never mentioned a secular state. I said Islamic (Saudia Arabia, eg.) and Atheistic (USSR, eg).

France is a secular state but I wouldn't have thought it was atheistic.
What worries me is that the atheists who push for seculaism seem to want it to go further towards atheism because they actively want to get rid of religion form all public life. That to me is not tolerant - though they would claim they want a tolerant society.

AS trule democratic society is one where, if a local council wants prayers before its sessions it should be allowed to have them.

An atheistic state is one where no one is allowed to demonstrate faith in a civic setting even if others are OK with it or want it.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

While I share quetzalcoatl's preference for a secular state, I agree with Mudfrog that it's intolerant to exclude religious beliefs from public life. Can we have both - a secular state in which religious beliefs are allowed in the public sphere? Maybe it depends on what it means to be secular.

Rowan Williams distinguished 'programmatic secularism' (wanting to exclude religious ideas from the public sphere) from 'procedural secularism' (wanting fair treatment for different religions and beliefs). He wasn't talking about official prayers - he was for a society "in which - for example - religious convictions are granted a public hearing in debate; not necessarily one in which they are privileged or regarded as beyond criticism, but one in which they are attended to as representing the considered moral foundation of the choices and priorities of citizens" (source). I like the sound of his "'procedurally' secular society and legal system which is always open to being persuaded by confessional or ideological argument on particular issues, but is not committed to privileging permanently any one confessional group".

Having agreed with Mudfrog on one point, I'm afraid that I have reservations about this:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I said Islamic (Saudia Arabia, eg.) and Atheistic (USSR, eg)...

You seem to want to link Islam and atheism with political repression. I doubt that you'd accept similar claims about Christianity.

Yes, Saudi Arabia call themselves an Islamic state and the USSR was officially atheist. But calling a violent militia group 'the Lord's Resistance Army' doesn't make it a fair example of Christianity in action - does it? If someone claimed that General Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile represented a Christian country, I think you'd be right to reject that. I wonder if you're prepared to treat Muslims and atheists as you would like to be treated.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
While I share quetzalcoatl's preference for a secular state, I agree with Mudfrog that it's intolerant to exclude religious beliefs from public life. Can we have both - a secular state in which religious beliefs are allowed in the public sphere? Maybe it depends on what it means to be secular.

Rowan Williams distinguished 'programmatic secularism' (wanting to exclude religious ideas from the public sphere) from 'procedural secularism' (wanting fair treatment for different religions and beliefs). He wasn't talking about official prayers - he was for a society "in which - for example - religious convictions are granted a public hearing in debate; not necessarily one in which they are privileged or regarded as beyond criticism, but one in which they are attended to as representing the considered moral foundation of the choices and priorities of citizens" (source). I like the sound of his "'procedurally' secular society and legal system which is always open to being persuaded by confessional or ideological argument on particular issues, but is not committed to privileging permanently any one confessional group".

Having agreed with Mudfrog on one point, I'm afraid that I have reservations about this:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I said Islamic (Saudia Arabia, eg.) and Atheistic (USSR, eg)...
You seem to want to link Islam and atheism with political repression. I doubt that you'd accept similar claims about Christianity.

Yes, Saudi Arabia call themselves an Islamic state and the USSR was officially atheist. But calling a violent militia group 'the Lord's Resistance Army' doesn't make it a fair example of Christianity in action - does it? If someone claimed that General Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile represented a Christian country, I think you'd be right to reject that. I wonder if you're prepared to treat Muslims and atheists as you would like to be treated.

I was really thinking about the case where it is against the law to convert to Christianity or to hold an unregistered religious meeting.

Where the law is anti-faith, then that is what I am talking about - and it applies to most Islamic states and applied to the USSR

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Alwyn

Interesting points about programmatic secularism. I've never really understood what 'public life' means; I suppose, in the first place, politics? After that, what does it mean? I don't think secularists want to stop people talking about religion in newspapers or TV or the pub, but I suppose they are technically, private life.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

Mudfrog - for what it's worth, I share your opposition to such anti-faith laws. I agree with Rowan Williams who (in the same speech I linked to above) said that "We cannot collude with an interpretation of Islamic political identity whose effects for Christians have sometimes been lethally oppressive" (emphasis added).

The difference between us seems to be that I would prefer to say something like 'an interpretation of Islam, applied by some repressive governments', whereas you seem to want to say 'Islamic states.' I remember Barnabas62 previously reminding us that the 'line dividing good and evil cuts through every human heart'; I agree. I don't believe that the line cuts between 'Christians - good' as opposed to 'atheists and Muslims - bad.'

quetzalcoatl - yes, I think that by 'public life' they mean political life, in the broadest sense - including the state-run school or university, local government, the law courts and so on. I would want people to be allowed to voice their religious views in those places. I wouldn't want those views to be privileged (or, at least, no more 'privileged' than a wheelchair user who uses a ramp to access a building is privileged).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points about programmatic secularism. I've never really understood what 'public life' means; I suppose, in the first place, politics? After that, what does it mean? I don't think secularists want to stop people talking about religion in newspapers or TV or the pub, but I suppose they are technically, private life.

Wikipedia article on the Public Sphere.
Public life includes both the formal organs of the State, and also, the public sphere as defined above, the public sphere being all those non-State areas of life that feed into the State's decisions and which hold the State accountable. So the media, trade unions, people marching on demonstrations, and the internet. I think not conversations in pubs in so far as conversations in pubs aren't a matter of public record.
I suppose the problem for a programmatic secularist is, if you a) want formal politics to be religion free, and b) don't want to ban religion from the media or marching on demonstrations, and c) want formal politics to respond to the media and demonstrations, etc, how to reconcile the three positions.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

As one who neither believes in god nor adheres to a particular religious view, I'd consider a state which outlaws all public expression of faith oppressive. After all, what would this mean? No wearing of kippa, cross, hijab in the street or in public buildings? No out-of-doors showing of emblems associated with specific traditions, so that people can't put up a crèche or Madonna in their yards? No crosses or crescents or stars-of-david on spires or outer doors of private buildings?

These traditions mean little to me, but I am part of a minority, and they're clearly very important to others. I would strenuously object to my government outlawing such activities.

At the same time, though, I do not wish to be required to support these activities with my tax dollars, and I object to the permanent co-option, through a multi-ton permanent display planted on public property which I, jointly with my fellow-citizens, own.

If Christians want to put up a giant crèche on the town hall plaza for a few weeks -- so long as they pay the bills involved -- it's no skin off my nose. If the local temple sets up a giant menorah there for Hanukkah -- so long as they pay the bills involved -- fine. If the regional pagans chip in for a Samhain display, let them. And so on. But all religious traditions, from Satanists to Sufis, have to be offered this access, be treated fairly, and shoulder their own costs in setting such temporary displays up, running & monitoring them (to prevent vandalism by yahoos), and removing them once the occasion for the display has passed. A maximum time limit of, say, 4 weeks might be needed. This will no doubt also lead to times when the relevant public space is totally devoid of religious decoration, and other times when there are several. The point is, these displays should be temporary. They shouldn't be multi-ton monuments requiring tax-payer-purchased blast caps for removal, and they shouldn't be permanent.

Atheists must simply put up with religious display; they're unavoidable. If you're genuinely worried that your kids might be shanghaied into Scientology by the sight of a symbol, then you, not they, are doing something wrong. If you don't like Baphomet, don't look at him. If crèches and crucifixes creep you out, ignore them. Religionists (by and large) have learned to put up with each other's expressions, however antithetical to others; atheists must do likewise. We all need to live and let live.

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :

I would invite everyone to read the Supreme Court’s decision, especially Justice Kagan’s dissenting opinion (supported by the other three Justices who desired to uphold the Court of Appeals decision).

Beeswax Altar, I would be especially interested if you could point out where you believe Justice Kagan has got it wrong (leaving aside the issue of State’s rights).

The Court of Appeals did not outlaw prayer at Council meetings in Greece – only that recent (1999) innovation which appeared primarily designed to isolate and intimidate those who did not share these particular religious views, rather than provide inspiration for the forthcoming occasion.

S-E

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Kagan either has to either oppose all prayer at public meetings or not. As Kennedy worries, allowing nonsectarian prayers puts courts in the place of defining a sectarian versus nonsectarian prayer. Besides, prayer of any kind could offend an atheist. I'm not sure but I'd be surprised if Greece didn't have more atheists or agnostics than practitioners of minority religions that would pray. Any prayer at any meeting would be potentially offensive to somebody. As Justice Kennedy said, the issue is coercing not causing offense. As to constitutionality, I believe most of the decisions the Supreme Court has made regarding church and state issues since 1947 are unconstitutional.

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Besides, prayer of any kind could offend an atheist.

Yes.. and no. For example, the Australian Parliament opens with the Lord’s Prayer, which has been the case since Federation, although we also have a non-establishment clause in our constitution. I take no real offence from this as such, for it can be viewed as cultural/historical as much as religious.

However, as Justice Kagan points out, the case in Greece is different, and as such incompatible with the First Amendment. I guess we’ll just agree to disagree – although I find it difficult to see how you can have a foundational principle which is ‘optional’.

S-E

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The founding principle isn't optional. It's just been misunderstood by some judges for several decades. Personally, I think they misunderstood it on purpose.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

The pro-establishment faction usually tries to pitch their opponents as objecting on grounds of "offense" and ignoring other grounds. For instance, the opinion of the court in Greece v. Galloway ignored both the Lemon test and Justice O'Connor's "endorsement test" in favor of a standard that anything short of coerced participation is Constitutional. It should be noted that coerced attendance of religious rituals is apparently okay, since any citizen with business before the Greece Town Board is required to attend prayer services first.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The pro-establishment faction usually tries to pitch their opponents as objecting on grounds of "offense" and ignoring other grounds. For instance, the opinion of the court in Greece v. Galloway ignored both the Lemon test and Justice O'Connor's "endorsement test" in favor of a standard that anything short of coerced participation is Constitutional. It should be noted that coerced attendance of religious rituals is apparently okay, since any citizen with business before the Greece Town Board is required to attend prayer services first.

Not necessarily. There's prayer, pledge, and anthem-sing before my state's legislature begins its session. I'm required to attend legislative sessions, but nobody bars me from taking my seat if I arrive a bit too late for the ceremonies (they do bar me from entering if the ceremonies have begun but not yet ended). Atheists who prefer to avoid prayer just need to time their arrivals carefully. Patriotic atheists will have to put up with being barred from pledging and singing. Hmmm; is that an issue unto itself?

In point of fact, our legislature is always careful to recess before these mini-ceremonies, and resume at their close.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Atheists who prefer to avoid prayer just need to time their arrivals carefully.

There are a lot of things that have been written about how to successfully petition local government, but I'm pretty sure that none of the (serious) advice says anything along the lines of "try to arrive late".

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The pro-establishment faction usually tries to pitch their opponents as objecting on grounds of "offense" and ignoring other grounds. For instance, the opinion of the court in Greece v. Galloway ignored both the Lemon test and Justice O'Connor's "endorsement test" in favor of a standard that anything short of coerced participation is Constitutional. It should be noted that coerced attendance of religious rituals is apparently okay, since any citizen with business before the Greece Town Board is required to attend prayer services first.

Look at the bright side. I'm unhappy they didn't overturn Lemon outright. We both have our quibbles with the decision.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Atheists who prefer to avoid prayer just need to time their arrivals carefully.
There are a lot of things that have been written about how to successfully petition local government, but I'm pretty sure that none of the (serious) advice says anything along the lines of "try to arrive late".

Nevertheless, petitioners are not required to arrive in time for prayers.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0