|
Jastiger posted:I really dislike the idea of satanism type stuff as test cases because its just as silly and is swapping one silly thing for another. If they conflate atheism with satanism, they can just wave satanism in as a silly, but valid point of view and then say "what is the problem, we let EVERYONE in!" which isn't the point. Well yeah, obviously, like with the statue they're also working with the ACLU to try to get all religious stuff removed, with the full understanding that the result they want would end up with their statue being removed as well. The point is that if you can't get religion removed entirely, then at least you get a big loving statue of Satan next to the ten commandments. It exposes how people don't want RELIGION in the public space, they want CHRISTIANITY.
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We need to get our heads together and make Tough Titties, inc v. ACLU a reality. bThen we can call the resulting common law application the "tough titty test". Don't bother, Scalia will literally write "tough titty said the kitty, 'cause the milk's all gone" in a majority opinion soon enough. He will then demand that a clerk physically affix this photograph to the opinion with tape: 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Scarey hypothetical that equates a jury trial with a town meeting? There is a distinction and its an important one. If I'm a petitioner going to a town meeting to ask the council to address a grievance and there is a religious ceremony at the beginning, I'm going to feel complicity compelled to participate just so I can think my position will be heard fairly. In the case in question, there were instances where the clergymember asked the entire town meeting to stand during be prayer. If I'm a nonreligious person a a meeting when that happens I'm hosed. I can either remain seated and be singled out as a heathen to the people I'm petitioning or I can participate in a religious ceremony against my personal beliefs to avoid that singling out. That's the town meeting compelling me to participate and it's unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Well yeah, obviously, like with the statue they're also working with the ACLU to try to get all religious stuff removed, with the full understanding that the result they want would end up with their statue being removed as well. The point is that if you can't get religion removed entirely, then at least you get a big loving statue of Satan next to the ten commandments. It exposes how people don't want RELIGION in the public space, they want CHRISTIANITY. That much is obvious. My point is that CHRISTIANITY doesn't care. People will be upset, but so long as their favorite gets to go up, they can pooh-pooh the Satanists and still win by having a majority Christian population in congress invoke Jesus and not Beezlebub. Its still a losing situation. Granted, I think its a funny and does do a lot to highlight the problems, but it doesn't do anything to remove religion from the public sphere which should be the ultimate goal when it comes to actual legislation and on-the-clock monies going to it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:There is a distinction and its an important one. If I'm a petitioner going to a town meeting to ask the council to address a grievance and there is a religious ceremony at the beginning, I'm going to feel complicity compelled to participate just so I can think my position will be heard fairly. quote:In the case in question, there were instances where the clergymember asked the entire town meeting to stand during be prayer. If I'm a nonreligious person a a meeting when that happens I'm hosed. I can either remain seated and be singled out as a heathen to the people I'm petitioning or I can participate in a religious ceremony against my personal beliefs to avoid that singling out. That's the town meeting compelling me to participate and it's unconstitutional. 2) Assumption: being "singled out" will occur 3) Assumption: being "singled out" will result in negative consequences relating to the business at hand Absent a showing that refusing to participate actually results in adverse consequences from the government, your scenario sounds like the only compulsion going on is the individual's own desire not to be identified as separate from the group.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I disagree, mostly because I think the only people who wouldn't care about a statue of Satan being next to the Ten Commandments are the kind of people who'd agree that religion has no place in the public sphere. Do you really think that the people who are up in arms about poo poo like the "War on Christmas" and "God shouldn't be banned from schools!!" would be cool with a literal statue of Satan? And in that case, it makes people watching the hypocrisy more likely to agree that it's inappropriate for either to be there. It's not a case of convincing the die hard religious fanatics, but it's more exposure to show how their position is unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I disagree, mostly because I think the only people who wouldn't care about a statue of Satan being next to the Ten Commandments are the kind of people who'd agree that religion has no place in the public sphere. Do you really think that the people who are up in arms about poo poo like the "War on Christmas" and "God shouldn't be banned from schools!!" would be cool with a literal statue of Satan? And in that case, it makes people watching the hypocrisy more likely to agree that it's inappropriate for either to be there. It's not a case of convincing the die hard religious fanatics, but it's more exposure to show how their position is unreasonable. I think most people know the position is unreasonable, they just don't care. Would it bother people? Sure, but remember, a statue is not the same as an entire invocation from a paid-from-state-coffers pastor time after time. They can tsk tsk their way into the courtroom and still start a session with Jesus. It is symbolic and that is all. I think a better method would be to require that all faiths be granted equal time and/or a rotating schedule regardless of the make up of the legislature. Go through a few hundred religions before we cycle back to a particular brand of Christianity. Green Crayons posted:How is that situation different from an elected representative going to a legislative session to ask fellow legislative representatives to address a constituent's grievance and there is a religious ceremony at the beginning? Or, we can just not do any of it at all and that side steps the entire issue. It is an unnecessary ceremony that is designed only to assist or support those that wish to participate that has nothing to do with the business of the state. For much the same reasons that churches aren't charities (they only benefit their members), a religious ceremony on state time is the same way, and as such should not be condoned. Its like only allowing one certain brand of advertising allowed at each session because everyone happens to like the local Walmart.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:1) Assumption: remaining seated or participating are the only two options (standing but not participating is an option, unless if you have a broad understanding of "participating") Oh sweet, I guess we can just have a Muslim prayer then, since you can face east and prostrate yourself, and as long as you think about titties instead of Allah while you're doing it, then it's not participation. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:55 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:1) Assumption: remaining seated or participating are the only two options (standing but not participating is an option, unless if you have a broad understanding of "participating") Standing is participating. Green Crayons posted:2) Assumption: being "singled out" will occur Being the only person seated, head upright with eyes open during a prayer is being singled out. Green Crayons posted:3) Assumption: being "singled out" will result in negative consequences relating to the business at hand Being singled out as a member of a minority group automatically exposes you to in-group bias, which is a very real thing. Just because someone on the town council never comes out and says "no zoning permits for the impurator" doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. We (as a human race) don't have a stellar record when it comes to impartial treatment of people with whom we disagree. Let's just avoid creating an unnecessary distinction at all during government events! Daremyth fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
  Source: some article I read
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Whatta footnote. I'm glad that they included it, but sheesh. The study can be found here. I dont' have time to read it at the moment, but the language in the summary is already really darn suspect.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Scarey hypothetical that equates a jury trial with a town meeting? I don't see the relevance other than to conjure up a boogeyman. A town meeting, much of the time, basically is a trial. Town ordinances can massively effect the population of the town, and often do functions such as zoning in areas too small/poor to have a dedicated staff. So, imagine if a Muslim goes to the town and asks that his ice cream business be allowed to be built in a residential area, an exemption, so that he can be closer to his Mosque; if the town opens up with "Jesus is our Lord and Saviour," do you think he will think he is being given a fair shake? Do you think the more religious Christians on the board will think differently if their religious differences are pointed out before such a case? Or how about a Doctor who wishes to open a clinic within the town, which focuses on reproductive services. A board member who might say yes to allowing the clinic to buy government land normally, could be influenced by such a prayer. 'Oh, but Pastor Bob said that condoms and birth control are sins Sunday morning. Good thing the prayer reminded me, or I might have forgotten!' Town meetings are incredibly important for the individuals and businesses who bring up items for discussion. And they tend to be very personal cases with a lot of detail thrown in. Having prayers before hand just muddles the water; at best, it is a neutral hand wave to local religious groups. At worst, it ruins livelihoods.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:Being singled out as a member of a minority group automatically exposes you to in-group bias, which is a very real thing. Just because someone on the town council never comes out and says "no zoning permits for the impurator" doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. We (as a human race) don't have a stellar record when it comes to impartial treatment of people with whom we disagree. Let's just avoid creating an unnecessary distinction at all during government events! Slaan posted:
This is the sort of thing that falls in the "completely acceptable today, will astonish our descendants in 100 years" category, though. The science on things like cognitive bias is *just now* hitting mainstream discourse; in the meanwhile, decisions like this are for the most part following established precedent. It'll take another twenty or fifty years for ideas like cognitive bias to filter up to the Supreme Court level. I mean, y'all are right, absolutely. But expecting the Supreme Court to listen to those arguments today is kinda overly optimistic. The supreme court justices are old; they don't like new ideas. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Or, we can just not do any of it at all and that side steps the entire issue. It is an unnecessary ceremony that is designed only to assist or support those that wish to participate that has nothing to do with the business of the state. For much the same reasons that churches aren't charities (they only benefit their members), a religious ceremony on state time is the same way, and as such should not be condoned. Its like only allowing one certain brand of advertising allowed at each session because everyone happens to like the local Walmart. I think that everyone can agree that just not doing any of it would be easier, yes. But "what's easiest" is not the standard. VitalSigns posted:Oh sweet, I guess we can just have a Muslim prayer then, since you can face east and prostrate yourself, and as long as you think about titties instead of Allah while you're doing it, then it's not participation. Daremyth posted:Standing is participating. My point is that not everyone thinks the same way about what constitutes participation, including the fact that people do actually think merely standing is not indicative of participation. So, no, not everyone thinks like you. Daremyth posted:Being singled out as a member of a minority group automatically exposes you to in-group bias, which is a very real thing. Just because someone on the town council never comes out and says "no zoning permits for the impurator" doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. We (as a human race) don't have a stellar record when it comes to impartial treatment of people with whom we disagree. Let's just avoid creating an unnecessary distinction at all during government events! A lot of this appears to be concern about general social interactions. But anything that doesn't pertain to negative government action is not addressed by the Constitution, nor relevant to this conversation. To the extent someone believes that they have been treated with bias based on their religious beliefs, they can (and do) bring suit. Slaan posted:A town meeting, much of the time, basically is a trial. Town ordinances can massively effect the population of the town, and often do functions such as zoning in areas too small/poor to have a dedicated staff. So, imagine if a Muslim goes to the town and asks that his ice cream business be allowed to be built in a residential area, an exemption, so that he can be closer to his Mosque; if the town opens up with "Jesus is our Lord and Saviour," do you think he will think he is being given a fair shake? Do you think the more religious Christians on the board will think differently if their religious differences are pointed out before such a case? The first question is preposterous. It assumes that the Town would not be discriminatory unless if a speaker talks about Faith A. The invocation of a specific religious belief by a non-government speaker before the beginning of the session, in and of itself, will not cause government officials to flick on their "Discriminate Against Religious Beliefs" button. As for the second question, I don't know (and neither do you), because "the more religious Christians" are not a unified block of discriminatory or non-discriminatory assholes who wield their governmental power in the same way. quote:Town meetings are incredibly important for the individuals and businesses who bring up items for discussion. And they tend to be very personal cases with a lot of detail thrown in. Having prayers before hand just muddles the water; at best, it is a neutral hand wave to local religious groups. At worst, it ruins livelihoods. <citation needed>
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:My point is that not everyone thinks the same way about what constitutes participation, including the fact that people do actually think merely standing is not indicative of participation. So, no, not everyone thinks like you. Ah yes, the "tough titties" doctrine. Also famed for its defense of school prayer because any little heathens are free to stay seated and not go hold hands in a prayer circle with the rest of the class. Not that holding hands constitutes participation. I admit that this analogy is vulnerable to the "Oh but school attendance is mandatory, but townhall meetings are voluntary so that's different" argument. And I concede this is a good point. Religious minorities don't have to participate in local government or have their views heard by the city council; that's strictly voluntary. Seriously, what's your hard-on for pushing Christianity into the public sphere? Don't you get enough praying in church? Are there not enough hours in the day to get in some praying at home? Are ostentatious public prayers even compatible with your Savior's explicit commands? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:32 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
You appear to not be reading what I'm typing. The "tough poo poo" doctrine is different from "not everyone thinks like you" because, amazingly, not everyone thinks like you -- and not everyone thinks simply standing up constitutes "participating" in a prayer. The "tough poo poo" doctrine comes into play when someone does think that standing equals participation, they chose not to participate, and then they simply feel bad about having to not participate even though no negative government action comes of it. In that instance: tough poo poo. If negative government action occurs, they can file suit and claim religious discrimination. VitalSigns posted:Seriously, what's your hard-on for pushing Christianity into the public sphere? Don't you get enough praying in church? Are there not enough hours in the day to get in some praying at home? Are ostentatious public prayers even compatible with your Savior's explicit commands? I'm atheist, so maybe recalibrate the tenor of your personal attacks? The First Amendment only prohibits passing a law respecting the establishment of religion, so I'm arguing that Town of Greece is aligned with that limitation. It is a limitation which recognizes that religion and religious beliefs (and not just Christianity) are allowed to have a public face, be it a non-governmental speaker before a legislative session or a series of different religious icons private citizens want displayed in a public area (including a Festivus beer pole) or other similar instances of religion being out in the public realm. It's basically an extension of freedom of speech principles, and until such non-government speech becomes "a law respecting an establishment of religion," I don't really see how this isn't simply private citizens being able to exercise their freedom of speech. (I don't know what the case law is on this point, though.)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You appear to not be reading what I'm typing. The "tough poo poo" doctrine is different from "not everyone thinks like you" because, amazingly, not everyone thinks like you -- and not everyone thinks simply standing up constitutes "participating" in a prayer. I can just see you smugly browbeating Muslims for not standing up for your non-prayer.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You appear to not be reading what I'm typing. The "tough poo poo" doctrine is different from "not everyone thinks like you" because, amazingly, not everyone thinks like you -- and not everyone thinks simply standing up constitutes "participating" in a prayer. This is your standard for a First Amendment Establishment of Religion? It's a two-prong test? (a) Does forums poster Green Crayon think you're being a whiner about whether an action is participation (b) Does actual negative government action occur It seems like teacher-led school prayer during class easily passes this standard, as long as no one is officially punished for going out in the hall, and the infidels aren't requested to do any more than stand while the teacher talks to Jesus. Green Crayons posted:I'm atheist, so maybe recalibrate the tenor of your personal attacks? Oh sorry, I assumed you had some kind of comprehensible, if self-serving, motive for wanting to establish a Christian religious rite as a de facto prerequisite to participate in democracy. Now it turns out your position isn't even that reasonable? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You appear to not be reading what I'm typing. The "tough poo poo" doctrine is different from "not everyone thinks like you" because, amazingly, not everyone thinks like you -- and not everyone thinks simply standing up constitutes "participating" in a prayer. No, these are inextricably linked as your next paragraph points out quite clearly. You don't think like everyone else and are a member of a minority faith? Tough titties, the government is going to treat majority faith as the official (that is, established) faith of the town. When you come to have your zoning appeal heard the town will have public affirmations of the established faith. You don't have to participate, but there is no way in which your failure to participate will go unnoticed. You can either think like everyone else (in this case think it's fine to publicly participate in affirming Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior) then tough titties. More than pushing Christianity you seem to have bought into Roberts explicitness line of thinking. If you can't prove that the money given to a politician by a donor who then got his bill passed, was in their minds in exchange for the bill then no corruption has occurred. If you can't prove the town council would have approved your driveway but for your refusal to participate in jesus worship, then the city hasn't established a religion. Statistics won't be enough either. Unless you can prove that inside the minds of of the legislators they're passing laws that reduce voting turn out of black people because they don't like black people, there's nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I think that everyone can agree that just not doing any of it would be easier, yes. But "what's easiest" is not the standard. My point isn't what is "easiest" or "makes the least waves", its what is "easiest to follow the Constitution and not discriminate". All the presence of prayer serves at a town hall meeting is to reaffirm a majority position on a specific (sectarian!) deity that purportedly has no bearing on government work. This puts the town, and really government in general, in a tough position when we analyze the use for such prayer. Are the civic duties done at the specific behest of God? If so, how do we prove this and use this as justification for a law (Lemon test)? Most would say no, the prayer isn't done for the purpose of receiving instruction specifically from God, so then what is the purpose of sectarian prayer? Is it to reaffirm the majority opinion on the existence of God? What function does this serve in the process of government other than specifying that there IS a majority opinion and create a potential exclusionary atmosphere for all citizens? Is it just tradition? This seems the most reasonable response to me because there are many traditions that are carried out, however, in nearly every instance tradition harms people, it has been curtailed and narrowed in scope. The problem is that this particular tradition has the side effect of creating the appearance that their government does not treat all citizens equal. The problem with the argument isn't just that "boo hoo I have to stand" its "boo hoo, they all think their governmental power and decision making ability comes from a being that I do not believe exists" which places the non believer at a big disadvantage not only in social circles but even in their ability to participate in government. Its wrong for the same reason its wrong for our military folks having to stand in formation while a prayer is broadcast. Its a government establishment of religion that directly contradicts the idea of religious freedom and secular government and holds not only religion over irreligin, but Christianity over others.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:No, these are inextricably linked as your next paragraph points out quite clearly. You don't think like everyone else and are a member of a minority faith? Tough titties, the government is going to treat majority faith as the official (that is, established) faith of the town. When you come to have your zoning appeal heard the town will have public affirmations of the established faith. You don't have to participate, but there is no way in which your failure to participate will go unnoticed. You can either think like everyone else (in this case think it's fine to publicly participate in affirming Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior) then tough titties. When brought to the Town's attention, speakers of other faiths were invited. The opinions make it unclear to what degree this differentiation in speakers continued. Presumably, someone speaking up once again can put speakers of other faith on rotation if the practice has dropped off. Presumably, someone speaking up can put speakers of a non-faith on rotation. The end result is a multitude of viewpoints being expressed over time, rather than in a single speech -- which achieves what the primary dissent was arguing for, but just not in a condensed fashion (in a single speech). Comparable to, say, a whole bunch of religious and non-religious icons being set up in a public area in Winter. quote:More than pushing Christianity you seem to have bought into Roberts explicitness line of thinking. If you can't prove that the money given to a politician by a donor who then got his bill passed, was in their minds in exchange for the bill then no corruption has occurred. If you can't prove the town council would have approved your driveway but for your refusal to participate in jesus worship, then the city hasn't established a religion. Statistics won't be enough either. Unless you can prove that inside the minds of of the legislators they're passing laws that reduce voting turn out of black people because they don't like black people, there's nothing wrong. - I've already stated ITT why I think McCutcheon was wrongly decided: donating directly to candidates, which is a difference in kind to independent expenditures, gives rise to the appearance of corruption that Congress should be able to regulate under the rational basis standard. - I'm guessing you're referring to Shelby County, but I also disagree with Roberts on that because his opinion ignored the Reconstruction Amendments' fundamental and permanent alteration of the States' sovereign authority in relation to federal power, which in turn undermines that opinion's reverence of the states' "equal sovereignty," and that leads to a much greater deference to legislative decision making (e.g., maintaining the same coverage formula). - Which leads to the need of proof of religious discrimination. I'm confused about your derision of proof -- are you suggesting discrimination should be assumed simply because a speaker of Faith A started the session off with a talk? Should we now always assume <bad thing> happened rather than requiring proof of it, or is religion just a special case because reasons? Jastiger posted:My point isn't what is "easiest" or "makes the least waves", its what is "easiest to follow the Constitution and not discriminate". All the presence of prayer serves at a town hall meeting is to reaffirm a majority position on a specific (sectarian!) deity that purportedly has no bearing on government work. This puts the town, and really government in general, in a tough position when we analyze the use for such prayer. This point is undermined by the fact that speakers from other than the majority faith have been previously invited to speak, and are presumably welcomed to return. quote:The problem with the argument isn't just that "boo hoo I have to stand" its "boo hoo, they all think their governmental power and decision making ability comes from a being that I do not believe exists" which places the non believer at a big disadvantage not only in social circles but even in their ability to participate in government. Its wrong for the same reason its wrong for our military folks having to stand in formation while a prayer is broadcast. Its a government establishment of religion that directly contradicts the idea of religious freedom and secular government and holds not only religion over irreligin, but Christianity over others. The fact that a speaker does or does not give a talk at the beginning of a session does not alter whether a government official "think<s> their governmental power and decision making ability comes from a being that I do not believe exists."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:This point is undermined by the fact that speakers from other than the majority faith have been previously invited to speak, and are presumably welcomed to return. Yes, speakers of all different sects of Christianity were invited. Such diversity. Don't take my word for it: Elena Kagan posted:if the Board preferred, it might have invited clergy of many faiths to serve as chaplains, as the majority notes that Congress does. When one month a clergy member refers to Jesus, and the next to Allah or Jehovah-as the majority hopefully though counterfactually suggests happened here, the government does not identify itself with one religion or align itself with that faith's citizens, and the effect of even sectarian prayer is transformed It's precious that you really think the people who want Jesus in every town meeting would ever allow a prayer to Mohammed. It'd be the 9-11 Mosque all over again, stonewalling and bitching about religious freedom and Muslims trying to force their heathen moon god on us all. Let alone a Pagan or a Satanic prayer. This "oh they're inclusive, everyone who wants to pray will be accepted" is bunk and you know it. There is no way on earth that a town of bible thumpers is going to stand in respectful silence while a priest invokes Satan's favor and intones "we pray to you Dark Lord" on behalf of everyone present, the way that people of other faiths are expected to respect invocations to the baby Jesus. Sure you could say "oh but you can't just assume Satanists will be rejected, wait until that happens", but of course it never will, because the speakers are chosen by invitation, and the town oh-so-coincidentally didn't even happen to invite any Jewish residents. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:When brought to the Town's attention, speakers of other faiths were invited. The opinions make it unclear to what degree this differentiation in speakers continued. Presumably, someone speaking up once again can put speakers of other faith on rotation if the practice has dropped off. Presumably, someone speaking up can put speakers of a non-faith on rotation. The end result is a multitude of viewpoints being expressed over time, rather than in a single speech -- which achieves what the primary dissent was arguing for, but just not in a condensed fashion (in a single speech). Opening a public forum to icons placed by private individuals creates a free speech and free-exercise clause claim that the religious icons can't be discriminated against. It is a completely different scenario than an establishment clause claim that government officials are conducting government business only after everyone agrees Jesus is great. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not sure I understand the other point. The fact that someone stops doing something illegal after a law suit is filed doesn't make the thing they did legal. Would it be fine for the chair of the board to open meetings saying "The white citizens of Greece are the greatest," until someone complained? I know those aren't the facts in Greece but I'm trying to understand how your "until someone complains" standard works. Green Crayons posted:Well, I'll give you that "sucker for Roberts" is certainly a different description of me than "sucker for religion/Christianity." But it also doesn't stick. What I meant is that it's the same line of thinking not that you necessarily think Roberts is a swell guy or agree with all his decisions. Just like without quid pro quo being established there's no corruption, your argument goes without proof that a negative action occurred because of refusal to participate (presumably this proof is obtained through mind reading) then there's no discrimination. This proposition is nonsense of course; the discrimination already occurred the moment the government endorsed a religion that is not your own.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, speakers of all different sects of Christianity were invited. Such diversity. You can look up all the "acceptable" prayers to all the justices: http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/ Also, you can see the "diversity" of the US House Chaplaincy: http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html Not as much diversity as everyone would like in the guest chaplains here: http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/guest_chaplains.html However most of the prayers I've seen are pretty generic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, speakers of all different sects of Christianity were invited. Such diversity. Town of Greece v. Galloway posted:The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers, all of whom were unpaid volunteers. A town employee would call the congregations listed in a local directory until she found a minister available for that month’s meeting. The town eventually compiled a list of willing “board chaplains” who had accepted invitations and agreed to return in the future. The town at no point excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer giver. Its leaders maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation. But nearly all of the congregations in town were Christian; and from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too. KernelSlanders posted:Opening a public forum to icons placed by private individuals creates a free speech and free-exercise clause claim that the religious icons can't be discriminated against. It is a completely different scenario than an establishment clause claim that government officials are conducting government business only after everyone agrees Jesus is great. One has nothing to do with the other. The point is that speakers from different faiths were invited (it just happened to be set off, in this case, by the fact that someone complained), and gave a pregame speech. I guess our irreconcilable difference is that I don't see a difference between when non-government speakers from a variety of different faiths (and non-faiths) are invited to give a pre-legislative session talk and when non-government speakers place icons from a variety of different faiths (and non-faiths) on government property. In each case, the government is inviting non-government individuals to engage in actions that are considered speech in the public forum. I see free speech, free exercise, and establishment issues in both of those scenarios, and don't agree that there's a distinguishing factor between the two (especially if the distinguishing factor is that this case doesn't present a "typical" legislative session in that non-professional representatives are present, or the fact that the legislative session includes some non-legislative activities).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Wow, they started allowing Catholics. The problem I have drawing parallels between town councils and Congress, though is that while a town council has some legislative authority, those meetings are really more like holding court than a legislative session. The public goes there for permitting, to express views on all manner of things, in some cases even to request temporary liquor licenses for a wedding. In some jurisdictions they exercise judicial power as well, adjudicating zoning violations or other such issues. It should give anyone pause that before a citizen of a minority faith can be heard he must endure a ceremony that says, "You are not one of us." e: ^^^ "I guess our irreconcilable difference is that I don't see a difference between when non-government speakers from a variety of different faiths (and non-faiths) are invited to give a pre-legislative session talk" That is not what happened. There was no open-mic at the start of the session. There was an invited speaker to conduct an opening ceremony that requested participation in an affirmation of a particular faith. Then the less privileged speakers were able to petition the board. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 16:21 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The point is that speakers from different faiths were invited (it just happened to be set off, in this case, by the fact that someone complained), and gave a pregame speech. Yeah, you forgot part of it TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY posted:The inclusivity of the 2008 meetings, which contrasts starrkly with the exclusively single-denomination prayers every year before and after, is commendable. But the Court of Appeals reasonably decided not to give controlling weight to that inclusivity, for it arose only in response to the complaints that presaged this litigation, and it did not continue into the following years. Three instances of non-Christian faiths in 4 years of meetings is better than nothing, but ignoring complaints until a lawsuit is filed, and only then inviting a couple of token speakers invited only after, never to be repeated doesn't categorically defeat the establishment of Christianity. The atheist plaintiff is still excluded every single time. The Jewish plaintiff still has to sit through a Christian prayer before she can exercise her rights as a citizen. You could say "Oh but there aren't that many Jews, so perhaps they just couldn't find anyone willing to lead the prayer again" but isn't this the exact problem? A member of a super tiny religious minority is already somewhat separate from the community, and now that's going to be the reasoning for the majority religion to impose a sectarian prayer 99.999% of the time? The smaller and more isolated a minority you are, the more official exclusion you face? Green Crayons posted:In each case, the government is inviting non-government individuals to engage in actions that are considered speech in the public forum. Except that this has literally nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting, which is for citizens to petition the town, not to be led in prayer before being allowed to exercise their rights as citizens. If the majority wants to get together and pray, they've got places for that. Heck, they can even request the use of the town hall when meetings aren't in session for all I care. Why should I have to choose between bowing my head to a God that's not my own or openly displaying my Otherness and risk alienating the officials that I'm petitioning? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:00 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I see free speech, free exercise, and establishment issues in both of those scenarios, and don't agree that there's a distinguishing factor between the two (especially if the distinguishing factor is that this case doesn't present a "typical" legislative session in that non-professional representatives are present, or the fact that the legislative session includes some non-legislative activities). In Marsh, the case which makes legislative prayer legal, the chaplain addressed the members while citizens are in a gallery. No citizen was called upon to do business before the legislature in the Marsh case, and after a Jewish legislator objected, they stopped referring to Jesus. In this case, the "chaplain of the month" faced the audience (some of who had business before the council), compelled participation (yes, bowing your head and standing are forms of participation), and frequently gave very sectarian and aggressively proselytizing prayers. The town board picks the "chaplain of the month" and there have been only 4 non-christians in 15 years. By the way, those four were shortly after the initial litigation and there haven't been any in the six years since. After the suit was brought, one of the chosen chaplains actually called out dissenters as an "ignorant minority". That's a HUGE difference than the Marsh case. It's worth noting that the people who filed suit didn't want to ban the prayer outright, they just wanted it so that “prayers that are obviously sectarian ... should be prohibited.”
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Good old Kagan. I've got to remember "hopefully though counterfactually" next time somebody starts talking about a colorblind society or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Good old Kagan. I've got to remember "hopefully though counterfactually" next time somebody starts talking about a colorblind society or whatever. When they get her off the goddamn bench (well, on the bench but not warming it - wow, sports metaphors really don't work with the judiciary), she's probably one of the most accessible writers in the history of the Court.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:(yes, bowing your head and standing are forms of participation) He doesn't seem to agree that being asked to bow your head to a God is participation, so I'm not actually sure where his definition of participation lies if "do this affirmative action in unison with other believers while I pray" doesn't count. Kneeling? It's just another body position like standing. Prostration? Anything short of being directly asked to repeat the words of the prayer? "Just drink the grape juice, you baby. I'm sure you drink juice all the time and think nothing of it, it's not magically compelled worship now that you're drinking it from a cup in a town meeting while a priest beseeches a being you don't even believe in". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:When they get her off the goddamn bench (well, on the bench but not warming it - wow, sports metaphors really don't work with the judiciary), she's probably one of the most accessible writers in the history of the Court. Will she have to recuse herself less often as the distance between her SCOTUS cases and her time in the DoJ increases?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Will she have to recuse herself less often as the distance between her SCOTUS cases and her time in the DoJ increases? Yes, though because of the time it takes to get a case up to SCOTUS it's hard to say when exactly it'll finally peter out. The administration did a good job insulating her from what it considered highly contested, high priority cases (probably because Kagan was on a SCOTUS shortlist at the same time she was up for SG, which still baffles me because just have someone else be SG).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:
I feel like you're missing the point, just like the justices were. The issue isn't that other people weren't invited, its that having a prayer for any kind of being, be it the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jesus serves no purpose for any legislative, judicial, or civic act by any governmental body other than making the particular group the representative a part of feel better. Thus I don't care if the list is 1000 pages long of other people invited, not only does that establish preference of the state for religion over irreligion, it also establishes in practice preference for sectarian speakers over none at all. So yeah invite away all you like, it doesn't make the action any less objectionable when we look at the purpose of legislative actions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
This link contains a series of SCOTUSBlog posts about reactions and takeaways from Town of Greece. Authors are mostly law professors, but there are some real life lawyers in there as well.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
SCOTUSBlog is already linked in the OP.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
And the link I provided is a compilation of posts that are relevant to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
All you need to do is look at the majority opinion to see that it is bullshit. It clearly fails the Lemon Test but in the opinion they said they weren't going to apply that because ~*~history and tradition~*~. That's fine but isn't that a big reason to have courts? For when "how things have always been done" goes against the law of the land so things can get corrected?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:All you need to do is look at the majority opinion to see that it is bullshit. It clearly fails the Lemon Test but in the opinion they said they weren't going to apply that because ~*~history and tradition~*~. That's fine but isn't that a big reason to have courts? For when "how things have always been done" goes against the law of the land so things can get corrected? You talk as if the goal of the Roberts court isn't to rehabilitate the historical and traditional virtues of chattel slavery, marital sexual bondage, and theocracy 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Is it ad hominem to point out that all three of the non-Christians on the court dissented from an opinion that said non-Christians shouldn't feel coerced into participating in or would be unreasonable to be feel disparaged by the overtly Christian prayers?
KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:59
|
|