Monday, November 4, 2013

"Legislative Prayer Gets Supreme Court Review"

"The Supreme Court, which asks for God's protection before every public session, will settle a dispute over prayer in the halls of government."
The case being argued at the court Wednesday involves prayers said at the start of town council meetings in Greece, N.Y., a Rochester suburb. It is the court's first legislative prayer case since 1983, when the justices said that an opening prayer is part of the nation's fabric and not a violation of the First Amendment.
AP Mark Sherman (Althouse will very likely have more on this)

12 comments:

sakredkow said...

I can't imagine how it's not a completely legitimate dispute.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...

(1) I'll bet there's no town in Greece that's named New York.

(2) The other day I met someone who told me she is Catholic and that she prays to Saint Anthony so she'll win the state lottery.

(3) When I was in grade school, saying the pledge of allegiance always seemed like praying to the flag, sort of like Yul Brenner putting his dead kid in front of a statue of some god who's got he head of a jackel and asking for his kid to come back to life in exchange for a great big new temple or something.

They made me stand but they didn't make me recite the Pledge.

Actually, looking back on it, my motivation was probably less like religious principle and more like an extreme case of stage fright.

Aridog said...

Phx ...oh, come on now. I was a total and complete atheist for 69 years of my life. At no time ever did the legitimate and honest religious observances of others bother me or hinder me. Why would I be bothered by reference or pleas to God when there was no God, so what to fear or worry about? How does the belief in God by others hinder me in any tangible manner?

Today I think noisy atheists are assholes who claim there is no God but worry the subject to death in some perverse form of rent seeking.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Kirsten Powers found Jesus...

The Dude said...

He's always the last place you look.

Now I've gone and done it...

sakredkow said...

Phx ...oh, come on now. I was a total and complete atheist for 69 years of my life. At no time ever did the legitimate and honest religious observances of others bother me or hinder me. Why would I be bothered by reference or pleas to God when there was no God, so what to fear or worry about? How does the belief in God by others hinder me in any tangible manner?

I agree with you but you see you and I can only speak for ourselves. It's pretty ridiculous for us to say since we have the correct attitude everybody has to have that attitude.

You can still call them assholes but my original comment stands with one modification: How is this not a legitimate dispute for the courts to decide?

Aridog said...

Phx ... the dispute is a spurious waste of time and money. "Liberty" involves freedom to do things so long as they do not hinder or harm (tangibly) another person. This atheist bullshit is all emotion and rent seeking.

And NO, I am not interested in having a court that thinks a "penalty" for non-performance or disobedience is really a "tax"...something usually applied to the products of performance and transactions therein....decide anything pertaining to religious exercise that harms no one.

Boo Hoo for the emotional twits.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

When I was in grade school, saying the pledge of allegiance always seemed like praying to the flag

I teach preschool--four year olds. We start our day by reciting the Our Father together, and next we say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Texas Pledge. The kiddos almost always end both pledges with 'Amen' just as they do with our prayer. Heh.

ken in tx said...

Please, what is the Texas pledge? My ancestors helped settle Texas. I think I should know.

ken in tx said...

Ok, I don't object to the Texas pledge, except that Texas is not indivisible. It has the right to be divided into five states. Maybe it would be a good idea.

Richard Simpkins said...

Yes, dividing into 5 states would be a fine idea, but I've done the math: it would result in 2 blue states and 3 red states, leaving the balance of the Senate essentially unchanged.