This doesn't change anything. Short, ceremonial prayers have always been allowed before government meetings (and were quite common through most of US history). The quotation from O'Connor has nothing to do with the issues in question in this case. That quotation was from a case where Kentucky was basically explicitly stating that their state law is taken from the bible.

We've already seen how bigots respond when an actual attempt at inclusion is made. Remember when Republican representatives walked out when a local imam addressed the Washington state legislature.

On one hand I think the whole thing is a bit silly, but I know that the goal of the right wingers is actually to have the government endorse their religion and send a message to non-christians that they are not truly welcome so, boo.

@3 And if someone finds a prayer by an unelected spiritualist to be an inappropriate way to begin a civic meeting, then they must not be normal.

But no, its not exclusionary or coercive at all.

I disagree, Seattleblues. Freedom *of* religion doesn't exist without freedom *from* religion, or people are forced to take part in or endorse a belief, rite, prayer, or statement they don't understand or don't agree with.

@ 3 Dude its right there in the first sentence, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok fine a short prayer can be ok but if it not a Christian one would you be ok with that?

"I'm looking forward to cries of "Sharia law!" and "Anti-Christian persecution!" when a town with a Muslim majority decides to begin all their city council sessions with Imam offering prayers to Allah."

Oh, yes, please, please, please! This needs to happen, and soon. "Christian" America is long overdue their wake-the-fuck-up call. And, I say that with the deepest respect to our Muslim brothers and sisters. All people deserve the right to practice, or not practice, their own religion. "Christians" need to be reminded from time to time that this is a secular society, and the government is neither their enemy nor their co-parishioner. True religious freedom only exists with pure government neutrality. Neither restriction nor endorsement should be permitted.

Please, Muslim-majority town council somewhere in America, invite the press, invite Fox news, and dedicate the invocation prayer, and your city government, to Mohammed. We need this.

Prayers are against my religion. Is the city going to force me to violate my Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs?

The Constitutional intent was the separation of Church and State. By that the Founding Fathers were specifically referencing the Anglican Church of England, which formed a secondary governing body, in addition to the State, and which imposed itself on all Protestant sects outside itself.

The Constitution was not intending to separate Man from his religion or faith, but merely to insure that a religious hierarchy does not superimpose itself on government. However, individuals, even those inside Government, are free to have religious expression. This was one of the main drivers for the founding of the Colonies and the creation of that amendment right.

They are shooting themselves in the foot. The separation of church and state protects religion as well as the non-religious.

As the demographics change in this country weakening that wall opens up all sorts of possibilities that these folks will to apoplectic about when they happen. As soon as there is a Muslim majority in an area and the school starts leading the daily prayers you are going to see Christian's blow their stacks.

As Christianity declines and other religions start to take precedence Christians are going to start experiencing what real discrimination feels like, and they are going to wish they had that wall of separation still strongly in place.

Short sighted. I would say they deserve what is going to happen, except that it will effect the rest of us as well.

Also: Muslim Majority Town. Is there one? I'm not mocking, just curious. But I'm sure there's probably cities with decent sized minority populations. Enough to get them into the ol' public prayer rotation at least...

I like how @3 uses the word "pervert" as if Dan or anyone else reading SLOG comments would view it as an insult.

So now the Citizens United can get together and pray about two disgraceful Supreme Court rulings.

there's no Muslim majority town in America, not even in MI, but I sure hope there are Jews, Buddhists, and Native Americans who'll assert their right to pray at civic events in their towns, and soon. maximum discomfort for Christians.

If I was an atheist in Greece, NY, I would petition to get on the prayer docket and use the opportunity to recite George Carlin routines about God.

Why does this country insist on being retrograde on most issues of importance? I've always thought America was a pretty good idea; too bad it's never really been tried, and we're obstinately heading in the wrong direction.

An aging pervert hates Christianity?! I'm stunned!

I assume you're referring to the buttsecks-obsessed creep, Antonin Scalia, whose ruling today allows the state to co-opt religion for its own purposes? I'm not religious, myself, but if I were I'd be pretty annoyed when the state tried to do that.

Oh yes, a prayer that ends with "In Jesus's name" excludes no one (no one who is a Christian), and is just a normal start of a secular political meeting.

We have to remind ourselves again that there are five Catholics on the Court, and Scalia has often said that of course, America is a Christian country.

@3: "For normal folks a simple prayer isn't an act of aggression"
Sure, maybe. But "normal folks" haven't been aggressively proselytized to by Christians who can't even read the religious texts they've co-opted from us, much less take the lessons within to heart. "[N]ormal folks" haven't been subjected to discrimination against their very faith in what claims to be the land of liberty and equality. "[N]ormal folks" aren't the targets of rabid calls for their conversion to the religion that some old philistine deems the "normal" one.
For me and my people, it is an act of aggression for Christian prayers to be routinely recited as part of a secular government function. It was an act of aggression even when a kindly (and certainly well-meaning) old man pronounced a Christian blessing on my little sister as she played at the park. It's an act of aggression when Christian conservatives say that we can't call mid-December the "holiday season", but rather insist that Christmas takes primacy.
I'm about to use in earnest a phrase that is deeply over-used. Check. Your. Privilege. You have never, NEVER, faced the prospect of being an outsider in the nation you call your own, never had someone else's culture foisted on you. My people have been outsiders, strangers in many different strange lands, for longer than your religion has even existed.

For what it's worth, in Hawaii, prayers* that call on non-Christian gods and goddesses happen quite regularly at government meetings. I've heard objections both from people who think this violates the separation of church and state, and from those who object to non-Christian prayer, but most people seem to think it's an appropriate way to honor the host culture.

* typically called a "Hawaiian protocol" to avoid exactly this kind of court case, but still.

@29: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:5)
So, how would you interpret that OTHER than as a proscription of praying in public before an audience?

@30, @32, +1.

@37: The Muslims were initially a persecuted minority among the pagans populating Mecca at the time, forced to flee to Medina and defend themselves against numerically-superior forces. Conversely, the Christians soon enough found themselves the state religion of the Roman Empire and quickly took to the Roman ways of pillage and conquest.

@35: MODS MODS MODS

@37: "The problem is less Christian-majority places in the US today, than the hypothetical, but real, prospect of Muslim-majority places in the US of tomorrow."

It's really about both.

Most Muslims today are no more blood thirsty, theocracy lovers than Christians. It's just that for those who are there are parts of the world that lets Muslims get away with it and not Christians.

But I have no doubt that given the opportunity Christians would do exactly the same things Muslims do in places they can get away with imposing their religion. The Christian machinery is all set to unleash inquisitions, stonings and all the other fun, Biblical methods of imposing "morality". Even the Catholic Church maintains the office of the inquisition (although they gave it a spiffy new name) and chose the grand inquisitor as the prior Pope.

And they are far from the least sane Christian machine out there.

Sure, there are lots of nice Christians who don't want any of that, just as there are lots of nice Muslims who don't want any of that. But history and current world politics shows us that there are enough of both who, if given the chance, will jump on the opportunity to put us in thumb screws and force their religious world view on us all.The only thing keeping Christians of today from doing that is the same thing that will keep Muslims of tomorrow from doing it. Chipping away at the wall between government and religion isn't about stopping the horrors that will come down the line, but the ones that are waiting in the wings right now in our own back yards.

Well Venom, it seems the anti-Semites came out a couple weeks late this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/pol…

Looks like the liberal justices are the fairer ones. How odd.

We can all thank Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr for the bang-up job of appointments. They're long gone, but the damage is still being done.

I wish we could have a hearing including scholars, archaeologists from around the world, and scientists on why the bible is bs. Come on we all know if Jesus existed he was an illegitimate child whose mom did not want to get stoned to death. Followed by personality disorder freaks who made up a tale to control pdople.

I love how the line from the bible saying public prayer is hypocritical and the kook says "It doesn't matter" because it's YOUR reading of the scripture.

* sigh