R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello all:
The Supreme Court of the U.S. issued its opinion in Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway today, upholding the town’s practice of beginning each town meeting with an invocation by a minister. Prayers were given by ministers and priests selected from a directory of the town’s churches. Because there were no non-Christian churches in the community, the result was that town meeting prayers were almost entirely christian in nature. The Supreme Court’s majority (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) ruled that the practice, which enjoys a long tradition in U.S. history with respect to Congress and other Legislative bodies across the country, was not a violation of the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The dissent (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) would have found the practice unconstitutional despite the long-standing history because (1) the prayers were not sufficiently non-sectarian; and (2) there were no attempts by the City to invite non-Christian religious from the neighboring area (e.g. rabbis from a synagogue in nearby Rochester where Jewish citizens of the town of Greece worshiped), but instead the City looked only to religious institutions within the City directory.
A link to the full (lengthy) opinion is here.
Just curious to hear what people have to say about the issue. I thought Justice Kagan’s dissent was a good example of the ideological differences that divide the Court (and our Country) seemingly right down the middle. I also enjoyed Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion that questioned whether or not the Establishment Clause was even applicable.
It certainly does open the door to more small towns adopting the practice. I think that’s a good thing. I also think that Justice Kagan’s approach, while well-intentioned, would go too far in the opposite direction and insulate people from religion, rather than allowing the free expression of a community’s religious beliefs in a non-proseltyzing and non-discriminatory way. The dissent assumes that because one person may be overly offended by a prayer offered by a different faith tradition, we should all be prevented from hearing the prayer. I respectfully disagree with the dissent’s position. Perhaps we need to listen to one another’s prayers, even if they may offend us from time to time? I think that we should be able to hear a prayer from a person of good will at a town hall meeting, even if he or she does not represent our own faith tradition, without fear of the ridiculous conclusion that such a prayer–through some mysterious process–will become the government’s endorsement of that religious point of view. That conclusion seems particularly far-fetched and unreasonable to me. That is especially true where, the Town of Greece never denied any request to present an invocation. Indeed, the opinion shows that the town had allowed various religious leaders, even a Wiccan priestess, to present invocations. Wouldn’t we all be the richer for this diversity? Which is a better reflection of a diverse religious country? Many prayers by different religions, or watered down generic prayers that are true to no particular tradition? I would prefer the former.
Peace,
Robert
The Supreme Court of the U.S. issued its opinion in Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway today, upholding the town’s practice of beginning each town meeting with an invocation by a minister. Prayers were given by ministers and priests selected from a directory of the town’s churches. Because there were no non-Christian churches in the community, the result was that town meeting prayers were almost entirely christian in nature. The Supreme Court’s majority (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) ruled that the practice, which enjoys a long tradition in U.S. history with respect to Congress and other Legislative bodies across the country, was not a violation of the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The dissent (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) would have found the practice unconstitutional despite the long-standing history because (1) the prayers were not sufficiently non-sectarian; and (2) there were no attempts by the City to invite non-Christian religious from the neighboring area (e.g. rabbis from a synagogue in nearby Rochester where Jewish citizens of the town of Greece worshiped), but instead the City looked only to religious institutions within the City directory.
A link to the full (lengthy) opinion is here.
Just curious to hear what people have to say about the issue. I thought Justice Kagan’s dissent was a good example of the ideological differences that divide the Court (and our Country) seemingly right down the middle. I also enjoyed Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion that questioned whether or not the Establishment Clause was even applicable.
It certainly does open the door to more small towns adopting the practice. I think that’s a good thing. I also think that Justice Kagan’s approach, while well-intentioned, would go too far in the opposite direction and insulate people from religion, rather than allowing the free expression of a community’s religious beliefs in a non-proseltyzing and non-discriminatory way. The dissent assumes that because one person may be overly offended by a prayer offered by a different faith tradition, we should all be prevented from hearing the prayer. I respectfully disagree with the dissent’s position. Perhaps we need to listen to one another’s prayers, even if they may offend us from time to time? I think that we should be able to hear a prayer from a person of good will at a town hall meeting, even if he or she does not represent our own faith tradition, without fear of the ridiculous conclusion that such a prayer–through some mysterious process–will become the government’s endorsement of that religious point of view. That conclusion seems particularly far-fetched and unreasonable to me. That is especially true where, the Town of Greece never denied any request to present an invocation. Indeed, the opinion shows that the town had allowed various religious leaders, even a Wiccan priestess, to present invocations. Wouldn’t we all be the richer for this diversity? Which is a better reflection of a diverse religious country? Many prayers by different religions, or watered down generic prayers that are true to no particular tradition? I would prefer the former.
Peace,
Robert
