# Anthony Kennedy is an idiot (re: prayer decision)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [May 5, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736 "2014-05-05T18:30:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/41 "2014-05-06T02:15:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> [Here’s one.](http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hinduism/2000/09/Hindu-Prayer-In-Congress-Criticized.aspx#)
That’s the U.S. Congress. Is that what you were referring to?
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/42 "2014-05-06T02:25:34Z")
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> 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.
Yeah, it’s the rationale of these decisions that’s so damned insulting to the intelligence. Not being “supervisors and censors of religious speech” my ass.
Really, if they wanted to uphold the practice, what they should have said was something like:
> [@Hypothetical SCOTUS Decision](#):
>
> Look, this Ceremonial Deism shit has been around since before the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment. As long as no one is actually being burned at the stake, it’s pretty much _de minimis_. Nobody takes it seriously except for those pesky atheists and the more beady-eyed members of the Bible-thumping crowd.
>
> And by “Ceremonial Deism” we of course mean “Ceremonial Generic Protestant Christianity”. We therefore find that a prayer at a city council meeting that talks about “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross” is OK, because, uh, Ceremonial “Deism”, that’s why.
>
> Naturally, Ceremonial “Deism” is all about lending a higher tone to the discussions of why the damn pothole-filling project is over budget again, and of course has diddly-squat to do with either the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech. Expressions of Ceremonial “Deism” must therefore be subjected to close governmental supervision and censorship–general calls on God to Bless America, or even talk about Jesus on the Cross is OK, because, uh, Ceremonial “Deism”. But you can’t start going on about how the heathen will be cast down into the Pit for all eternity, or having an altar call in the middle of the city council meeting, because, Jesus Christ, people, c’mon.
(In prettier and more dignified language, of course.)
---
### Author:  [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/43 "2014-05-06T02:45:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> 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.
Well, if the actual institutionalization of an official national religion, by the federal government (a la the Church of England), is the only definition of “establishment” that you will accept, then I guess the debate is over before it began. I readily acknowledge that every other expression of government support for religion is different from this one particular expression of federal government support.
By this logic, of course, the states should be able to establish their own religions. States should be able to punish religious dissenters. States should be able to banish heretics, just like the early colonies got rid of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams.
Accepting such a limited definition would also force us to reject, completely, the idea of incorporation when it comes to the Bill of Rights. I’m not sure whether or not that’s something you’d be comfortable with. If you’re an opponent of incorporation, then your position on the establishment clause is consistent. If you’re not an opponent of incorporation, i’d be interested to know how you decide which parts of the Bill of Rights are worthy of incorporation, and which aren’t.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Picking one religion and elevating it above the others. The state can "sponsor’ religion, in a broad sense, without establishing a particular religion.
Ah, but there’s the rub, right?
What percentage of religious rituals, conducted in the context of government business, have to be from one particular religion in order for us to consider that religion to be “elevated” by the government? If 50 percent of your opening prayers are explicitly Christian, is that elevating Christianity? What about 80 percent?
Do we make these evaluations based on population proportions, or based on a simple calculation of the number of religious rituals? That is, if there are 8 million Jews and 80 million Catholics in America, are Catholics allowed to have ten times as many government-sponsored ceremonies as Jews? Or should Catholics and Jews receive equal time. Do we differentiate Catholics and Protestants, or are they all just Christians?
I understand that much of the above is silly, but the point is that people might differ on what it means for government to “elevate” a religion, especially in a context like the decision currently under discussion, where basically every single prayer was Christian, except for a few instances right after the initial lawsuit was filed, when other religions were included in a clear effort to add some balance for the purpose of public and legal perceptions.
More generally, **Jimmy Chitwood** has also addressed some of my other thoughts on this issue. I’d also add that it’s not that we can’t draw distinctions between “establishment” and “state sponsorship”; rather, the courts seem to go even further, and engage in a sort of sophistry whereby “state sponsorship of religion” is actually defined as a secular rather than a religious act.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> 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 know that you’re on record arguing that the second amendment is an anachronism, and i’d argue the same about the establishment clause.
For me, of course, the only problem is that my definition of “anachronism” is probably different from that of many Americans. Many Americans would argue for a much weaker establishment clause, and some would like to eliminate it altogether and turn the US into an explicitly Christian nation.
I believe that the establishment clause should be reworded to explicitly include both belief and non-belief, rather than simply rejecting the idea of establishment. The current clause implies that religion of some sort is a universal given, and I’d word a new clause to remove that implication, and to explicitly protect non-belief in the same way that it protects belief. That might seem paranoid, but i don’t think it is, especially when politicians—even liberals like Al Gore—bleating that “freedom of religion need not mean freedom from religion.” I believe that “freedom of” should, if that’s my preference, mean “freedom from,” and i’d like that in the Bill of Rights.
---
### Author:  [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/44 "2014-05-06T02:50:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> That’s the U.S. Congress. Is that what you were referring to?
You’re seriously going to nitpick that as a cite for Christians getting bent out of shape when the ceremonial opening prayer that can’t possibly be offensive is Hindu instead of Christian because it’s Congress and not a city council meeting? Seriously?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/45 "2014-05-06T02:58:32Z")
It should be noted that none of the justices, including the ones dissenting, takes the position of the OP. So, I’m not sure what he has against Kennedy, but perhaps his vitriol should be directed at the entire court.
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/46 "2014-05-06T02:59:04Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#):
>
> You’re seriously going to nitpick that as a cite for Christians getting bent out of shape when the ceremonial opening prayer that can’t possibly be offensive is Hindu instead of Christian because it’s Congress and not a city council meeting? Seriously?
That’s the very essence of **Bricker**. Surely that doesn’t surprise you?
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/47 "2014-05-06T03:04:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> That’s the U.S. Congress. Is that what you were referring to?
ETA: If you follow the quotes back, it was in response to a post about Congressional Chaplains.
It makes me want to bring in a ceremonial nuclear device…
---
### Author:  [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/48 "2014-05-06T03:20:19Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> ETA: If you follow the quotes back, it was in response to a post about Congressional Chaplains.
>
> It makes me want to bring in a ceremonial nuclear device…
Just so long as it’s neither ceremonial nor a nuclear device…
---
### Author:  [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/49 "2014-05-06T03:34:46Z")
How about we declare a truce? I won’t make you all listen to ten choruses of Dayenu or sit through Yom Kippur services and you don’t force to me to listen to preachings about Jesus? 'kay?
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/50 "2014-05-06T04:17:07Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#):
>
> How about we declare a truce? I won’t make you all listen to ten choruses of Dayenu or sit through Yom Kippur services and you don’t force to me to listen to preachings about Jesus? 'kay?
I don’t know Dayenu… I was the guest goy at a Passover dinner once, and enjoyed it; what are Yom Kippur services like? I mean, I’m willing to try these things out once, at least!
But I suspect you’ve probably already heard no few sermons/lectures/essays/apologists for Christianity. A lot more prevalent in our society than Judaic material. (I emailed “Ask the Rabbi” once…)
Oh, I just YouTubed Dayenu. Only three verses. Hey, I’ve heard worse!
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/51 "2014-05-06T04:32:45Z")
Had a similar experience, did some work for some extra-Jewish people on days when they couldn’t because God. Can’t deny the part about being _goy_ but thought “shabby goy” was a bit judgemental. But they were nice folks, probably didn’t mean nothing by it.
---
### Author:  [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/52 "2014-05-06T05:36:45Z")
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> Well, if the actual institutionalization of an official national religion, by the federal government (a la the Church of England), is the only definition of “establishment” that you will accept, then I guess the debate is over before it began. I readily acknowledge that every other expression of government support for religion is different from this one particular expression of federal government support.
>
> By this logic, of course, the states should be able to establish their own religions. States should be able to punish religious dissenters. States should be able to banish heretics, just like the early colonies got rid of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams.
My recollection is that there is a fair amount of scholarship suggesting that the Founders’ purpose in propounding the Establishment Clause was indeed to protect the established state churches from being superseded by the establishment of an official church at the federal level. Which of course means that the history has little to offer us in interpreting the E. Clause today…
---
### Author:  [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/53 "2014-05-06T07:05:40Z")
I’d be happy to see these little religious demonstrations in government vanish entirely, but, like others here, I don’t think this is that big of a deal. Moreover, Justice Kennedy’s argument as quoted in the OP – while not, perhaps, ironclad – strikes me as reasonable, and undeserving of some of the scorn heaped upon it.
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> And I’d forgotten about the _Lemon_ test, from a 1971 Supreme Court case, [Lemon v. Kurtzman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman).
>
> The three-pronged test for the involvement of public institutions is as follows:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 1. The government’s decisions must not result in an “excessive government engagement” with religious affairs’. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
> > 2. The government’s legislative action must minimally enforce or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
> > 3. The government’s implicit action is required to maintain a secular legislative agenda (also known as the Purpose Prong)
>
> 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.
You think that a (neutered) prayer before a city council meeting constitutes “excessive government engagement”? That’s a pretty low bar. Furthermore, and maybe this is just me, but if I’d had to come up with a definition for an act that “minimally enforces” religious practice, an opening prayer such as this may well have been the \*exact \*example I came up with. (I’ll grant that an opening prayer’s clearing the bar set by that wording of the third prong is a little dodgier.)
IANAL.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/54 "2014-05-06T08:27:42Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#):
>
> How is telling preachers they can’t [“denigrate nonbelievers”](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:1&version=NIV), [“threaten damnation”](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html), or for God’s sake [“preach conversion”](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A19-20&version=NIV) _NOT_ acting as “supervisors and censors of religious speech”?
Because he knows that those restrictions will in fact be ignored at every turn.
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> I’d be happy to get rid of ceremonial deism and prayers before legislative meetings and all that, but the thing I can’t get around is that Congress has had Chaplains and opened their sessions with a prayer since the First Congress. The Congress that passed the first amendment started with a prayer. So, I’m not really sure that you can reasonably make the argument that legislative prayer is banned by the first amendment. At least there didn’t seem to be any conflict in the minds of the drafters of the first amendment.
They also held slaves while claiming they considered all men to be created equal. They were hypocrites.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/55 "2014-05-06T10:04:40Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#):
>
> You think that a (neutered) prayer before a city council meeting constitutes “excessive government engagement”? That’s a pretty low bar.
No, I don’t - but the devil is in the word ‘neutered.’
I think it’s workable for the courts to give an OK to ceremonial deism, but it requires real work on their part to make sure the prayers stay neutered. When they find people are stretching the definition of ‘ceremonial deism’ far enough to include stuff like “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross,” I think they can’t absolve themselves of having to push back.
When you get to that point, I don’t think that’s neutered at all. I think it’s a full-bodied statement of what my faith is all about - it’s what I want people to preach! Which would be great in plenty of other contexts.
But not this one.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/56 "2014-05-06T12:51:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> You totally misread my OP, and when I tried to spell it out for you, you said something in response that made zero sense.
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> 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.
Cue Sesame Street: “One of these things, does not belong here! One of these things, is not like the rest!”
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/57 "2014-05-06T12:55:00Z")
Maybe I should sum up my argument, for clarity’s sake:
1. I’ve got nothing against ‘ceremonial deism’ per se. I’m not keen on it, but I can certainly live with it.
2. But having that concept in the law demands constant vigilance on the part of the courts to maintain the line between state-sponsored ‘ceremonial deism’ (which is permissible) and state-sponsored sectarian religious expression (which is not).
3. Phrases like **“the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross”** \* are clearly sectarian religious expressions\*, and are well beyond what can be construed as ‘ceremonial deism.’
4. By allowing such state-sponsored expressions under the rubric of ‘ceremonial deism,’ the Court dropped the ball.
5. Kennedy’s statement that “To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact” is in this context an amazing refusal to maintain that line.
You can’t draw a line between supposedly not-really-religious ceremonial deism and sectarian religious expression, and then say you can’t enforce that line because that would have you operating “as supervisors and censors of religious speech.” That would be true enough _if you agreed that ‘ceremonial deism’ was religious speech_ - but the whole reason that we can allow it in state fora is that supposedly it’s **not**.
Kennedy can’t have it both ways. Either ceremonial deism is religious speech, in which case it has no place in our government, or it’s not, in which case it’s his duty to maintain the line between government-sponsored non-religious speech and government-sponsored religious speech.
But it can’t be religious speech when you’re saying the courts can’t distinguish between different sorts of religious speech in government fora, and at the same time be non-religious speech in order to allow it in the door to begin with.
A whole lot is too much; too much is a whole lot. Same thing.
1. Giving everyone the right to lead a sectarian prayer at a public forum just means the majority decides to get what the established religion is. Establishment of religion by majority rule is right out. The fact that it’s done through a ‘neutral’ mechanism doesn’t change that: of course such neutral mechanisms will favor the majority. [Other majoritarian mechanisms have been rejected by SCOTUS concerning prayer at public school activities such as high school football games.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe)
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/58 "2014-05-06T12:55:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> Well, if the actual institutionalization of an official national religion, by the federal government (a la the Church of England), is the only definition of “establishment” that you will accept, then I guess the debate is over before it began.
No, I was joint pointing out the establishing and sponsoring are two different things.
> [@](#):
>
> What percentage of religious rituals, conducted in the context of government business, have to be from one particular religion in order for us to consider that religion to be “elevated” by the government? If 50 percent of your opening prayers are explicitly Christian, is that elevating Christianity? What about 80 percent?
>
> Do we make these evaluations based on population proportions, or based on a simple calculation of the number of religious rituals? That is, if there are 8 million Jews and 80 million Catholics in America, are Catholics allowed to have ten times as many government-sponsored ceremonies as Jews? Or should Catholics and Jews receive equal time. Do we differentiate Catholics and Protestants, or are they all just Christians?
I wouldn’t look at quotas or outcomes, but at process. Is the process open to people of all faiths, and to people of no faith? Are there people who have had legitimate offerings, but were turned away because the process was rigged against them?
> [@](#):
>
> I believe that the establishment clause should be reworded to explicitly include both belief and non-belief, rather than simply rejecting the idea of establishment. The current clause implies that religion of some sort is a universal given, and I’d word a new clause to remove that implication, and to explicitly protect non-belief in the same way that it protects belief. That might seem paranoid, but i don’t think it is, especially when politicians—even liberals like Al Gore—bleating that “freedom of religion need not mean freedom from religion.” I believe that “freedom of” should, if that’s my preference, mean “freedom from,” and i’d like that in the Bill of Rights.
I’d be happy to see the “wall of separation” explicitly written into the constitution.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/59 "2014-05-06T12:57:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Cue Sesame Street: “One of these things, does not belong here! One of these things, is not like the rest!”
If you feel like offering a rebuttal to anything I’ve said, Counselor, you would be most welcome to do so.
So far, your contributions to this thread have been a mixture of whining and nonsense.
If you want to act like a grownup, I will be happy to engage you in conversation. If you don’t want to do so, I will talk with the other grownups.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736/60 "2014-05-06T13:01:48Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs;17352226
They also held slaves while claiming they considered all men to be created equal. They were hypocrites.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but doesnt that support the point? It took an amendment to outlaw slavery passed by a congress that specifically opposed it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthony-kennedy-is-an-idiot-re-prayer-decision/687736.md?page=4)