There’s religion and then there’s religion. The American rich man’s Christianity is religion in the sense that you aren’t allowed to prevent people from exercising it, but it isn’t religion in the sense that it imposes on anyone. It’s no big deal, just a sort of communal “we’re all the same” kind of a situation. It doesn’t actually mean anything to anybody. It’s just… nice. You know, it’s always been like this!
Muslim prayers at town hall meetings are right out, it should go without saying.
James Madison later in life seemed to think that Congressional chaplains were unconstitutional, but I’m not sure if he always believed that or felt very strongly one way or the other on the issue. I’m sure there were other differing opinions.
I know that he’s a minority of one on this issue, but Clarence Thomas has always held that the First Amendment shouldn’t be incorporated against the states and that they should have the power to establish churches if they want to. Has anyone ever gotten him on record as to what the scope of this should be? I mean, does he think that the states should be able to fine or imprison religious dissidents? I’ve always been a curious about that.
What’s also highly instructive is the reaction of Christians on those very few instances when the invocation was non-Christian. They pitched a huge fit.
The Supreme Court really fucked this one up. Not as bad as the Fugitive Slave Act, but pretty damn bad.
(I have a vague sense we might be just as well off; this is the sort of thing that might have mobilized enough “ceremonial deists” to amend the constitution.)
I’m sure there were, but it doesn’t seem like the First and Second Congresses objected as a whole, otherwise, why would there have been chaplains. It seems to me that, if there’s a practice that’s been going on since the country was founded, you have a really high burden in declaring it unconstitutional, and given the list of judicial decisions supporting ceremonial deism and religious stuff like that, it’s a stare decisis thing. It seems like this is the sort of thing that’s grandfathered in.
The Supremes seemed to consider that they town had opened up the opening prayer to anyone, thereby not establishing a specific religion.
So submit to open the meetings. Have an atheist homily, cite Odin’s request for wisdom, close with “By Grabthar’s hammer”, etc. They have to leave it open to anyone from the town, so the townies who want to be represented can get on the list.
cite?
Agreed. I really, really, really wish the founders had said something like: no religion of any kind at any level of government. But they didn’t. And so it’s up to us to figure out what it means, not in the context of what we, personally, would want, but what the country wants. And the fact of the matter is that the country wants to be able to invoke prayer at public meetings. Even our resident constitutional scholar in chief adheres to the tradition of ending speeches with “God bless the United States of America”.
Try to entirely rid religion from the public sphere in the US, and you will trigger a backlash of Biblical proportions.
Ummm, defend it against what??
Against “What other alternatives did make lack of reading ability cause me to miss?”
Next you’ll be asking me to defend it against “All your base are belong to us.”
Seriously, I have no clue what point you’re trying to make. You totally misread my OP, and when I tried to spell it out for you, you said something in response that made zero sense.
I can’t really do much with that. Sorry, counselor, but “Waaaahhh!” is the clearest thing you’ve said in this thread.
My apologies. Per the link, the prayers included references to things like “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.” I should have mentioned that in my OP.
Anyhow, if that fits under the rubric of ‘ceremonial deism,’ it’s hard for me to imagine what religious utterances wouldn’t. It doesn’t get more specifically ‘here’s why you should be a Christian, here’s what our faith is all about’ than that.
Actually, Kennedy’s argument about the purpose of this sort of religious invocation echoes older decisions, such Lynch v. Donnelly (465 U.S. 668, [1984]), in which Sandra Day O’connor, speaking about more general issues of ceremonial deism, said:
Emphasis mine.
On the one hand, as an atheist, i sort of agree with John Mace. I really, for the most part, don’t give a flying fuck if some superstitious dolts want to pray before a council meeting, or invoke God before a session of Congress. I also agree that those who wrote the Bill of Rights probably would defend most, if not all, of these practices.
On the other hand, as a rational person, i get pretty depressed by the logical contortions that some of these justices go through in order to convince themselves that this really isn’t about state sponsorship of religion, or that there is no other way to mark the gravity of an occasion. Sandra Day O’Connor is really pretty fucking dumb if she can literally think of no way, other than an invocation of God, to solemnize a public occasion and express confidence in the future.
And Kennedy is equally moronic if he thinks that a prayer is necessary to “unite lawmakers in their common effort.” If any lawmaker requires a public prayer simply in order to do his or her civic duty as an elected official, that person has no business serving in elective office.
I sometimes think it would be better if the justices actually ruled honestly on this issue, and make a clear statement of original intent, along the lines of: “Look you atheists and associated heathens, the founders didn’t want to establish a religion, and they didn’t want to prevent you from worshipping cows or some fake god like “Allah,” but they all believed in a creator, and for the most part they identified that creator with something like the Judeo-Christian God. Get over it.”
The outcome, in terms of consequences, wouldn’t be much different, and would at least have the virtue of honesty, unlike all the attempts to pretend that ceremonial deism and public prayers are anything other than thinly-disguised state sponsorship of religion. Especially when the prayers themselves, as in this case, explicitly reference the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the key to salvation.
I’d guess ripping out a mailbox and putting it on top of someone’s car and tossing a part from a fire hydrant into a swimming pool qualifies as a ‘fit’ for most purposes.
The problem with that is it’s establishing a religion by majority rule, or at least a majority of those who insist on participating in the prayer ritual.
ETA: And per wevets, persons in the majority were clearly trying to intimidate those with minority views. The whole point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent shit like that.
mhendo: As usual, a very thoughtful post. That’s why you are one of my very favorite posters on this MB. But I must disagree, and this is not just a quibble. You talk about “state sponsorship” of religion which quite a different kettle of fish than “establishment” of religion. The founders were all about eliminating (at the federal level) an established religion. Picking one religion and elevating it above the others. The state can "sponsor’ religion, in a broad sense, without establishing a particular religion. For instance, the state could invite religious leaders of all faiths to come together to solemnize the opening of this legislation session, which would be sponsoring a religious ceremony without establishing a particular religion.
Until and unless we can write a different “establishment” clause", we are going to have to accept some level of religious intrusion into government. The alternative is to just throw that whole clause out the window, and then which other part of the constitution is next?
I see what you did there.
And I’d forgotten about the Lemon test, from a 1971 Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman.
The three-pronged test for the involvement of public institutions is as follows:
Excessive government engagement? Check. Enforcement of religious practice only minimal? Apparently not. Required to maintain a secular agenda? Hardly.
Maybe my scorecard looks different from Justice Kennedy’s, but as I see it, *Lemon *would have struck this absurdity out on three pitches.
Once again, my problem with this decision is that it’s hard for me to see where you draw a line that keeps Pat Robertson and James Dobson from preaching at your town meetings, if you let this sorta stuff in.
Practically, for sure; but then the phrase “sponsorship (of) religious activity” is, supposedly, part of what the Establishment Clause contemplates. I think that’s one of those contortions mhendo is talking about. Whether or not it’s the case that what the Establishment Clause means in practice is “just don’t go overboard,” what the Supreme Court has pretty clearly articulated is that what it means is that among other things, we’re protected against state sponsorship of religion. That being the case, these opinions get pretty silly: we talk like we have this very stark prohibition in effect, but then we act like what we really mean is that we’re a little bit Christian. But only a little.
They did?
What exactly did they do?
And yet Lemon existed when Marsh v. Chambers was decided.
Arty says:
Mild dissent. Because a ceremonial makes reference to religious sentiment does not make it a religious ceremonial. When one is asked to swear on a Bible, for instance, one is emphasizing an awareness of the gravity of the situation. If I had a soul, I might be putting it at risk of harsh judgement by Whomsoever It May Concern.
Ceremonial deism is a kind of poetry, it is intended to add gravity to a situation, whether that situation supports such attention or not. It is an invocation at the start of a legislative session when the fate of the Republic is in jeopardy and a Friday night football game in Demming, Texas.
So, yeah, as long as they are talking about that form of ceremonial deism, I don’t think it has the gravity of a Big Hairy Ass Deal. Don’t have a problem with that, any more than I rankle if someone says “God bless you” when I sneeze. Hey, a blessing is a blessing, not like I’m worried about having too many.
Same reason I have no problem bowing my head when my Grandmother said grace before eating. Perhaps my thanks are cast into a void, but is there some harm in broadcasting gratitude into an indifferent Universe?
So long as it can be dealt with as ceremonial deism on these terms, my attitude is shrug if off and muddle through. Creationism in our kids school books? No fucking way.