Well, sort of.
It was initially de jure, but de facto segregation continued in many places despite rulings outlawing it.
You seem to know more than I do about this-- I’m just going by what’s in the article. But still, if they fixed the system then problem solved. If their selection system is still suspect, then require them to put additional fixes in place.
It’s an SDMB rule; if there aren’t three of something, it isn’t a list. 
I think the article actually just misinterpreted the opinion on that point, John:
*Nearly *all the churches were Christian, but all of the prayer leaders were. And I think saying if they fixed the system, then problem solved sort of misses the point that the Supreme Court here is saying that what they did - before the complaint - was permissible. If they hadn’t changed anything and had continued on with their policy of non-discrimination in theory, all-Christian in practice, they wouldn’t have committed a violation.
Too bad they don’t just pray outside the building before the meeting. Then the prayer is not part of the meeting, and they are more publicly displaying their Jesusness to the voters. It seems win-win!
OK, but I’m still not really clear on the system they were using. It sounds like it was an invitation only process, and if that was the case, then I agree it needed to be changed. They should develop a clear policy that is open to anyone, and as removed from the human element as possible. If they need to draw names out of a hat, then so be it.
It appears that we already have some local interpretations of the ruling as permitting specifically Christian prayers and only Christian prayer. Presumably the Supreme Court would hold this sort of policy unconstitutional, but I guess it’ll be good for litigators.
And if someone so chooses to make a fight out of it, I would mildly disapprove, too much smoke, feathers and hunks of flying fur, pollutes the psychic environment. Still, if that’s what they insist on, they have every right and the law either is or ought to be on their side.
Still, just don’t see that much harm to it, someone wants a public prayer. Besides, don’t you have to have a priest or a saint or some other major dude to get the direct line? Otherwise, you go straight to voice mail…
That post segregation defacto segregation was conscious and deliberate wasn’t it? Do you think there was a conscious attempt on the part of the town council to exclude minority faiths? Or is your real concern that religion is present at public government functions in the first place? Would it resolve all your concerns if they took a census of town residents and provided proportional representation to the varying faiths?
Big difference between priest and saint, priests can be child molesters. The problem with any religious expression is that intrudes on my private beliefs when presented to a capitive audience. When some guy starts preaching on the subway to a capitve audience, there is no implicit government endorsement of what that street preacher is saying and i am free to heckle the guy if I want (my freedom of speech is not trumped by his freedom of religion). When some guy (picked by the city council) starts proselytizing at a city council meeting where I hope to petition the city council to put up a stop sign or a speed bump on my street, then it does feel like the city council is endorsing what the guy is saying and I certainly don’t feel free to tell that guy that I think he’s full of shit. I might feel like I have to bow my head in prayer along with everyone else and pretend that the pastor makes perfect sense and nod in agreement for fear that this might affect my petition to get a speed bump on my street where I am concerned that someone is going to hit my kid.
And saints can be child molester enablers. Remember that JPII is on the fast track.
I don’t think it’s germane to what mhendo was trying to communicate with that analogy, so it’s a weird point to try to stick him on, but not every example of de facto segregation was one of active exclusion.
If Alabama had redrawn a couple of its electoral districts immediately after the first complaint was filed in Reynolds v. Sims, or if they had changed the police admission test in Washington v. Davis after that complaint was filed, it would have been the same situation as in Greece: they’d be arguing they had never actively excluded anybody, but also that they had fixed the problem already.
As someone on the conservative wing of the extreme left, I have priorities. There are battles that must, absitively, posolutely, be fought, tooth and nail. Viet Nam and the Iraq War figure prominently on that list. Civil rights, voting rights, sure.
“Ceremonial deism”, shrug it off, muddle through. Nobody is going to die because some well-meaning chaplain gives a benediction at a city council meeting. Not interested in making new enemies over something like that.
May need to someday, I guess, so many of my enemies have gotten old…
This is a fairly good point; the problem is that one such decision can be used as the basis for the next one. There is a slippery slope effect.
When talking about prayer in school, a friend said to me, “You’re okay with the slogan on the money, so why not anything else?” The problem, of course, is that I’m not “okay” with the slogan on our money. My friend’s attempt to shove me farther down the slope is an example of the problem with making even harmless concessions.
The OP to this thread observes the flaw in allowing that first crack in the dam.
It’s not a “slippery slope” fallacy when the other side comes to the table dressed in swimsuits holding a Slip-N-Slide and a garden hose.
I think you mean Saint JPII was fast-tracked.
Oh, my goodness…that’s an even faster track than I expected! Mr. Wojtyla doesn’t deserve to share a canonization with John XXIII.
Meh. I examined the checklist of beliefs in the Nicene Creed several years ago, and found that there are so many statements of fact which I do not accept as true that I can’t even consider myself a Christian any more, let alone a Roman Catholic.
They can do what they like within the confines of their [del]little[/del] club; it has no bearing on my life whatsoever.
Personally, I could easily see a circumstance in which any sort of prayer is an implied message towards non-Christian religions and (especially) atheists. Of course, such a circumstance would be easily deniable, with little proof possible.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if smaller towns and districts did this already.
Oh, I fully agree with that. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
The opinion I gather from the majority is that even if something is wrong one time, doing it often enough makes it right. Or, a sectarian prayer, if repeated sufficiently, loses enough meaning as to no longer be religious.
The majority seemed to ignore the content of the prayers as irrelevant. But the dissenters thought the content was important.
I urge everyone to read Kagan’s dissent. Here is an excerpt: