Greece v. Galloway: Why We Should Care About Legislative Prayer

[cbayer]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/10/01/76025/greece-v-galloway-why-we-should-care-about-legislative-prayer/


The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington.

By Sandhya Bathija | October 1, 2013

The Town of Greece, New York, located just eight miles east of Rochester, has a population close to 100,000 people and includes residents who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, and Baha’i, as well as many who do not subscribe to any faith. But despite the town’s religious diversity, since 1999, residents attending town board meetings have first had to sit through a Christian prayer.

Two town residents, after asking the board to change its practice several times, filed a lawsuit against the town board in 2008 because they were offended by the “town board’s alignment with Christianity through the board’s persistent presentation of Christian prayers.” The board, they argue in their complaint, “sends the message to non-Christians that they are unwelcome at Board meetings and that the Board does not represent non-Christians’ concerns.”

A district court upheld the town board’s practice, but on appeal, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 2011 decision, said that the Greece town board’s prayer practice was unconstitutional. The town then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Town of Greece v. Galloway will be argued before the Court November 6.

Since our nation’s beginning, our federal courts have played a crucial role in preserving the religious freedom of all Americans, which can only be done if the government does not favor religion over nonreligion or one belief over others. The outcome of Greece v. Galloway could determine whether religious liberty in the United States remains strong or is seriously limited.

more at link

[cleanhippie]

1. If more liberal/progressive Christians were to stand up against ANY public endorsement of religion..

by elected officials we would likely not have so much of this to deal with. But since so many are unable to understand that religious freedom IS the distance between church and state and instead perceive lawsuits against this behavior as an attack on their faith...

[struggle4progress]

2. The Greece town supervisor and all town council membersare Republican. The town's representation

in the 29-member county legislature are all six Republican. The NY Assemblyman representing Greece is Republican, as is the Senator representing Greece in the NY Assembly. So I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess this is a pretty conservative place

And you think the town council gonna listen to progressive and liberal opposition to their showboating with public prayer?

I don't think so

[trotsky]

3. Sometimes the point isn't direct confrontation...

but publicizing opposition to the behavior, perhaps to educate a few people who are on the sidelines.

There are some individuals in this very group that I realize it's pointless to engage with directly, but I reply to them anyway so that others can judge their behavior for themselves.

[cleanhippie]

4. Go back and re-read my post for what it actually says, not for what you want it to say.

[struggle4progress]

14. You attributed this to the failure of "liberal/progressive Christians" to "stand up"

But the rightwing has been engaged in political showboating on such issues for as long as either you or I can remember, and it has been absolutely central to Republican organizing since the Reagan era, as can easily be verified by reviewing recent GOP platforms: the uniformly Republican character of Greece NY and its immediate environs thus explains the stance of the town council on this matter

[cleanhippie]

15. And if liberal/progressive Christians would actually stand up to this

Which thu have yet to do, since the Reagan era, we would likely not even be talking about this.

It has to start somewhere. Non-believers are trying, as are some liberal/progressive believers, but until the liberal/progressive believers oppose this en masse, every time the subject comes up, nothing will change. YMMV

[el_bryanto]

5. Would the issue be different if they allowed prayers from other faiths?

As well as inspirational thoughts from secular groups? I have to admit my main objection is the denial of other faiths.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

6. For me, prayer (of any faith) has no place in government/public institutions.

But allowing ALL faiths, and those with none, deliver opening remarks is the second best solution. The problem lies in who WANTS these prayers (most always Christians), who is in charge of the government/public institution promoting these prayers (most always Christian), and who gets to deliver these prayers (most always Christian).
In practice, its most always a ploy by Christians to get Christian prayers inserted into government/public institutions, unfairly promoting one religion over all others.

[el_bryanto]

7. Well that does seem to be the case most of the time

I can't argue with that. But I'd like to believe it doesn't have to be. And also I suspect that those cities or counties where they do rotate and allow different introductions probably don't get in the press as much. An inclusive policy is less likely to be challenged.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

8. Very few of these cases end up with an inclusive policy.

Because thats not what the (mostly) Christians behind the ploy want. They want Christian prayer. Period.

[el_bryanto]

9. Do you have documentation on that?

My point is that if a county or city had an inclusive policy it wouldn't make news; the cases we are most likely to hear about are those in which there is Christian overreach.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

11. Just observation.

We only hear about these cases when a lawsuit has been filed or is imminent. It seems that most of them go to court or the whole idea gets dropped because the Christians behind the push for prayer really don't want prayer from non-christian sources.

I remember reading about a few instances where an inclusive policy was adopted, only to have the whole policy dropped after it became apparent to the Christians who pushed for it that they were not going to be able to dominate the system with Christian prayer. Having to sit through a prayer given by someone from a different faith can be a real eye-opener, forcing one to see the issue through others' eyes.

[el_bryanto]

12. That's not a bad thing though.

Seeing the world through someone's eyes is often beneficial. I have heard of those cases though, pretty sad.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

13. The downside is that those who drop the policy beacuse of its inclusiveness do so for the wrong

reasons.

Its not because they see how their prayers at the meeting are perceived by others, they simply hate having to listen to non-christian prayers.

[cbayer]

10. That's exactly right. The previous SCOTUS cases have allowed for prayer under certain

circumstances, and those communities that have developed inclusive policies don't receive much attention.

FFRF has confined their actions to those that are violating the current rulings.

What will be interesting here is whether SCOTUS shifts towards a higher bar.