Supreme Court Decides on Town Meeting Prayer

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]

It’s also incredibly intimidating to pray in public. It’s much more intimidating to try to include verbal prayer in your life than it is to hear someone do it.[/quote]

Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.â?¦

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]

It’s also incredibly intimidating to pray in public. It’s much more intimidating to try to include verbal prayer in your life than it is to hear someone do it.[/quote]

I agree public prayer can be/is intimidating, but I fail to see how the intimidation factor, either way, has anything to do with free speech?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]
JR249 argued that intimidation can be a legal justification for banning certain prayers in public institutions. I’m not necessarily arguing that they should be. I’m just saying that in some instances it may be legally justified.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
JR249 argued that intimidation can be a legal justification for banning certain prayers in public institutions. I’m not necessarily arguing that they should be. I’m just saying that in some instances it may be legally justified.[/quote]

It was language quoted in one of the news articles as having apparently been mentioned verbatim at the Supreme Court hearing. I didn’t actually read the official transcripts from the hearing itself, but I am guessing they are, as always, available online. Just be sure not to take it out of context, I just mentioned it in passing.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]
JR249 argued that intimidation can be a legal justification for banning certain prayers in public institutions. I’m not necessarily arguing that they should be. I’m just saying that in some instances it may be legally justified.[/quote]

Okay, I thought you were arguing speech should be banned if it’s deemed “intimidating.”

Which you can probably tell I think is ridiculous.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]
JR249 argued that intimidation can be a legal justification for banning certain prayers in public institutions. I’m not necessarily arguing that they should be. I’m just saying that in some instances it may be legally justified.[/quote]

Okay, I thought you were arguing speech should be banned if it’s deemed “intimidating.”

Which you can probably tell I think is ridiculous. [/quote]

It is not a “freedom of speech” case, it is an “establishment of religion” case.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]
JR249 argued that intimidation can be a legal justification for banning certain prayers in public institutions. I’m not necessarily arguing that they should be. I’m just saying that in some instances it may be legally justified.[/quote]

Okay, I thought you were arguing speech should be banned if it’s deemed “intimidating.”

Which you can probably tell I think is ridiculous. [/quote]

It is not a “freedom of speech” case, it is an “establishment of religion” case.
[/quote]

I’m no lawyer :wink: however, I think you could argue it’s both.

Edit: And to be clear my comment was direct at SexMachine’s comment about the prayer being “intimidating.” I was not talking about the ruling.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However I find this absolutely not “faith intruding on government matters”. Firstly, that is pretty impossible to avoid unless you want a person of faith to be a complete ass hypocrite while in office (not that there aren’t a million hypocrites already). Or unless you think only atheists should be elected to office (I’m fairly certain you’re not that silly). Everybody carries their worldview into office.

[/quote]

Indeed they do carry their worldviews into office, and of course it neither should nor could be any different. But there is a serious difference, as far as I’m concerned anyway, between a governing body made up of people of individual and free conscience on the one hand, and a governing body which prays to a deity during the course of the execution of its official duties as a governing body.

Half of PWI would melt into a puddle of blind indignation and crimson fury if a local government somewhere in the United States began reciting Muslim prayers at the outset of convention. Or, even better, how about a town government that begins its official proceedings with, “We hereby and in good faith promise–to each other–that we will execute the duties of our offices faithfully, because there is no God and there is no plan and we are thus solely responsible for ourselves, each other, and the well-being of our society.” PWI would collapse into a vinegary vortex.[/quote]

Perhaps you are right. I, for one, would not. If you don’t like it get a new leader or new municipal board, or new whatever. That is why the democratic process exists. They did, according to the report in the NYTimes I read, reportedly ask for people of other faiths to lead, and even an atheist to give a preliminary solemn word. Apparently nobody wanted to.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If someone is offended by another person praying, quite frankly, that person should be shamefully embarrassed they are so weak that mere words hurt them.[/quote]

It is not about offense. It is about prayer having no place in government convention.[/quote]

What are your grounds for this argument? Surely you realize the words “separation of church and state” exist nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
[/quote]

Indeed I am.

I am also aware that my First Amendment right is violated when I am impelled by law to pay for a government meeting wherein prayer to a deity is recited ex cathedra.[/quote]

You’re also impelled by law to pay for the murder of American Citizens via drone strike, murder of babies in the womb and a whole host of other government atrocities any self respecting theist would find disgusting.

I’m not religious, don’t care for prayer, but I can also see a bigger picture and not really give two shits if our elected officials feel the need to have one, as long as they make good choices during governing, I’m not concerned what words as they relate to religion are said.

Because in the end, my money pays for a whole lot of things significantly more awful than 90 seconds of prayer. [/quote]

This is another good point and one that I was considering making earlier. I’d personally add that part of being a citizen of a representative democracy/republic is that you realize you will be offended by certain things that the majority decide to be agreeable to–this does not in any way curtail your freedom of speech, it means you should exercise your unalienable right to try to change your surrounding gov’t. It means also that there are certain things you will be agreeable to that other think are offensive bullshit. EVERYONE pays for shit they find abhorrent under our current system.

It is nice to know that I can pray to Odin if I were to attend a town hall meeting.

[quote]espenl wrote:
It is nice to know that I can pray to Odin if I were to attend a town hall meeting. [/quote]

I don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re also impelled by law to pay for the murder of American Citizens via drone strike, murder of babies in the womb [/quote]

Neither of which I’m in the slightest favor of.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling this the end of the world. I’m not exactly worked up about this.[/quote]

lol, fair enough. However some people really flip out about it. [/quote]

If they agree to devote at least part of the prayer to asking for an end to illegal drone strikes, I’m on board. [/quote]

Hahaha. Sold!

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:
b) whether or not the prayers were coercive or intimidating to non-adherents
[/quote]

You mean like:

  1. Stand, facing Mecca. Raise your hands with your thumbs near your ears and say, “G-d is the Greatest”(Allahu Akbar)

  2. Fold your arms in front of you, with your right hand on your left forearm and say, “Glory be to Allah and praise and thanks be to Allah, and there is no g-d but Allah and Allah is Most Exalted and Great”

  3. Raise your hands to about your shoulders and say, “G-d is the Greatest”(Allahu Akbar)

  4. Bow with your hands on your knees. Say, “Glorified is my Lord, the Great” (3 times)

  5. Stand straight up. While in the process of standing, say, “Allah listens to him who praises Him” Once completely standing, say, “Our Lord, praise be for You only,” then raise your hands to about shoulder height and say, “G-d is the Greatest”(Allahu Akbar)

  6. Go down on your knees, face on the floor (forehead and nose), hands just below the shoulders, toes pointing forward (bent, not behind you). Say, “Glorified is my Lord, the Exalted” (3 times)

  7. Say, “G-d is the Greatest”(Allahu Akbar) then sit up on your knees and say, “Oh my Lord, forgive me and have mercy on me.”

  8. Then say “G-d is the greatest”(Allahu Akbar) and return to prostrating (face on the floor). Say again, “Glorified is my Lord, the Exalted” (3 times)

This completes the first rakah. For the second rakah, do steps 1 through 8, and then come to a sitting position. While coming to the sitting position, say, “G-d is the Greatest”(Allahu Akbar)

  1. Sit up on your knees, bottom resting on your heels, hands resting near your knees and say, “All our oral, physical and monetary ways of worship are only for Allah. Peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be on you, O Prophet. May peace be upon us and on the devout slaves of Allah. I testify that there is no G-d but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is His slave and messenger”.

This completes the second raka.

After you have completed all rakat:

Remain sitting with your hands near your knees and say, “O G-d send your mercy on Muhammad and his posterity as you sent Your mercy on Abraham and his posterity. You are the Most Praised, The Most Glorious. O G-d, send your Blessings on Muhammad and his posterity as you have blessed Abraham and his posterity. You are the Most praised, The Most Glorious. Our Lord, grant us the good of this world and that of the Hereafter and save us from the torture of hell.”

Then, turn your head to the right to address the angel at your right shoulder and say, “Peace and mercy of Allah be on you.”

Then, turn your head to the left to address the angel at your left shoulder and say, “Peace and mercy of Allah be on you.”

This completes the prayer.


I would argue that a prayer of this length involving the repetition of ‘Allahu Akbar,’ referring to everyone as ‘slaves’ and talking to angels on your shoulders might make some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

Strawman and you know it. That is not the only time of the day prayer by a muslim is allowed (or specifically, 5 times). It is not the only type of prayer allowed. That would be essentially like saying the “Lords Prayer” is the only kind of prayer allowed in Christianity.

Just because you don’t like muslims doesn’t mean a town can’t have a civilian who is a muslim open them in prayer.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]

It’s also incredibly intimidating to pray in public. It’s much more intimidating to try to include verbal prayer in your life than it is to hear someone do it.[/quote]

Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.â?¦[/quote]

You misunderstand the intent of those passages friend. It was something different than opening a meeting in prayer which was done in that day and is still done, and which you notice he had nothing to say against.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

They did, according to the report in the NYTimes I read, reportedly ask for people of other faiths to lead, and even an atheist to give a preliminary solemn word. Apparently nobody wanted to.

[/quote]

This seems like a big waste of time to me, but not enough to get my panties in a big bunch over the establishment-clause implications. As far as government con-law violations go, this type of time waste is way down on the list of things to take to court. At least they weren’t raising taxes or exercising eminent domain in a land snatch while they were inviting solemn words.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

They did, according to the report in the NYTimes I read, reportedly ask for people of other faiths to lead, and even an atheist to give a preliminary solemn word. Apparently nobody wanted to.

[/quote]

This seems like a big waste of time to me, but not enough to get my panties in a big bunch over the establishment-clause implications. As far as government con-law violations go, this type of time waste is way down on the list of things to take to court. At least they weren’t raising taxes or exercising eminent domain in a land snatch while they were inviting solemn words. [/quote]

Pretty much got to agree with you there. On the other hand, I suppose they did it in order to try to head off lawsuits like this one. The time they wasted in an attempt to head-off any lawsuits by being inclusive didn’t really work did it?

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

This seems like a big waste of time to me, but not enough to get my panties in a big bunch over the establishment-clause implications. As far as government con-law violations go, this type of time waste is way down on the list of things to take to court. At least they weren’t raising taxes or exercising eminent domain in a land snatch while they were inviting solemn words. [/quote]

I don’t know if this is the case in this circumstance or not, but there are special interest groups on both sides of the fence with deep legal pockets who actively encourage their members to seek out or at least report questionable practices as test cases in their respective communities (e.g., Freedom from Religion Foundation, the ACLU or the ACLJ). These groups have attorneys on retainer just to challenge legal cases for the purpose of bringing about greater judicial scrutiny of perceived speech, religion, or other Bill of Rights violations.

This decision sounds good on paper especially to those christians living in christian dominate towns. I have a feeling most of them would have a fast reversal of their opinion if they found themselves as a minority religion in some other town.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I would argue that a prayer…some people feel intimidated.[/quote]

So?[/quote]

It’s also incredibly intimidating to pray in public. It’s much more intimidating to try to include verbal prayer in your life than it is to hear someone do it.[/quote]

Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.�¢?�¦[/quote]

You misunderstand the intent of those passages friend. It was something different than opening a meeting in prayer which was done in that day and is still done, and which you notice he had nothing to say against.[/quote]

I understand the intent…it was directed at the idea that it is intimidating to pray in public comment. I’m fine with the SCOTUS decision.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
This decision sounds good on paper especially to those christians living in christian dominate towns. I have a feeling most of them would have a fast reversal of their opinion if they found themselves as a minority religion in some other town.[/quote]

I suspect it will not be long before we find out first hand.