There are limits, however. As long as the prayer being administered doesn't proselytize or isn't exclusionary, it is Constitutional. The full story can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/nyregion/supreme-court-allows-prayers-at-town-meetings.html?_r=0 What's next? Will state houses be allowed to keep their doors that have the Ten Commandments carved into them. Can we get curriculum back in our schools for theology as an electable course? Of course, this fell along ideological lines, but what is new?
Before it happens let me point out that this ruling was severely limited for a reason, the ruling does not in anyway apply to schools or graduation ceremonies. Only local governments.
If it were Muslims praying to Allah before a public meeting the same people that congratulate this decision would be crying bloody murder about Sharia law creeping into their communities.
It's already happened. An Iman opened a session of Congress last year. I don't remember the bloody murder crying though.
First off, the thread title is misleading, since it implies that SCOTUS broadly deemed such prayers as constitutional. They did not. This decision is carefully limited to the town of Greece NY. It's not at all clear whether different towns following different procedures fall under this decision. Second, it's interesting that the five Catholic Justices all decided Christian prayers were normal, inoffensive ceremonies. The other non-Catholics (three of whom aren't even Christian) seemed to understand what it's like to be a member of a minority faith (or none). This is just one more First Amendment case where the Catholic Five outvote the non-Catholic four. Or perhaps the Reblican Five outvote the Democratic Four. We have long passed the point where it makes any sense to look at the facts in the case, the law, the constitution, or the precedents to predict how the Justices will vote. Those factors no longer influence or otherwise enter into any of these 5-4 decisions.
Most local governments are like five old men who have known each other for decades, if they want to open with a prayer you are better off not suing them.
Not really. There are cases where this come up fairly regularly as the militant atheist go around, find a place that does it, attend a meeting so they can say they were offended, and then file a complaint with the assistance of the ACLU, and usually eventually win after the taxpayers have shelled out a wheelbarrow full of money defending the practice. I suspect that this ruling is going to give the places something to fight back with.
OK. So you really think this only applies to a small hamlet in upstate New York. You must also think that Loving v. Virginia only applies to Mr Loving and his wife? Thread title is dead on. Ceremonial Prayer is Constitutional.
Aww, let the Gullible chant incantations all they want.... it proves that none of their mumbo jumbo has EVER WORKED...
this decision was made because they claimed to open the prayer to all faiths... so one day it will be a Muslim preacher now.. just a mater of time.... we will see how they handle that...
then we have this... in Alabama too btw [video=youtube_share;ZY8xf1uJOqI]http://youtu.be/ZY8xf1uJOqI[/video]
While you're probably right, I think they left some wiggle room. A LOT depends on the Justices making these decisions. According to the New York Times So I expect that if the makeup of the Court should change, this decision as worded would permit a lot of latitude in subsequent decisions.
While I am certainly no scholar at the separation of religion and state - other than that clause is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution - I believe the Founders included the part that there was to be nor organized state religion - like that found in Great Britain - so that EVERYONE would have the right to participate in any religion they so desired - without government censorship. [Whew! Didn't mean to make it so long.] There is absolutely nothing wrong with proselytizing and any religion should be represented if "prayers" are included to start ANY function. The breaking point comes when any one group - including rabid atheists - demands that any specific religion be banned, or forbidden from participating. I am Imam wishes to do whatever they do - God be with him!
