Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Prayer Police have a bad day

Supreme Court: Sectarian prayers before legislative sessions don’t violate the Constitution
Score so far this month: Sanity 1, Prayer Police 0.

It comes as a big shock that the First Amendment, which does not ban prayer at government meetings, written by men who prayed at government meetings who were elected by people who wanted prayer at government meetings, in a modern court case in a country where the vast majority of citizens still want prayer at government meetings, in a Court that begins its sessions with a prayer, might permit prayer at government meetings.

Who knew?

It was a 5-4 decision, which means that four a**holes need to be impeached. I know... I'm dreaming. But the thought that we tolerate racists and anti-Christian bigots on the Supreme Court who flagrantly disobey the Constitution leaves me staggered.

This case should have been laughed out of court and the atheist tools who brought it should have been assessed court costs.

I don't know why the American people tolerate this.

33 comments:

  1. It's a wonderful day for freedom in America. I fully expect that all of our "liberal" commenters will be here in just a moment to pout that their totalitarian impulse to silence speech and stigmatize religion was not fulfilled. Boo hoo.

    Now that the supremes have made this decision, the "liberals" are going to have to amend their disingenuous talking point that the court is right because they're the court. As has been demonstrated a thousand times on this blog, the so-called "separation of church and state" is not part of our founding document. The fact that the court discerned it from a letter from non-Constitution author Thomas Jefferson to a bunch of Baptists does not mean that the separation is a bedrock principle of our Constitution. It proves that sometimes the court doesn't give a flip what the Constitution says and they just decide what they want.

    Over the many times that we've had this conversation on this blog I've heard the same argument over and over: Who cares if it doesn't actually say that in the Constitution? The court says it's there. Case closed, shut up.

    Even if our "liberal" friends were actually consistent in their doctrine of judicial supremacy, they would would only be consistently wrong. But they aren't consistent. Decisions like the one decided yesterday prove that they pick and choose when to apply the doctrine of judicial supremecy..

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correction: Sanity 0, Christofascism 1

    the vast majority of citizens still want prayer at government meetings

    Citation needed. By the way, it's irrelevant what the citizens want. What's relevant is whether it violates your Constitution.

    So, does this mean you changed your mind about allowing a mosque to be built near Ground Zero? Free speech and freedom of religion, right? Or is that Freedom of The One True Religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By the way, it's irrelevant what the citizens want. What's relevant is whether it violates your Constitution."

      And it doesn't.

      I knew it wouldn't take crybaby fascist Troy long to comment. Now I'm just waiting for crybaby fascist KW, crybaby fascist Hoo, and crybaby fascist bachfiend to show up and spout some chicken little nonsense about how their right never to hear the word Jesus spoken aloud is being violated. It's going to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again!

      Blow it out your ass, Troy. The court you love so much when it decides your way says that it's constitutional. Granted, when I want to gauge the constitutionality of something I look to the actual constitution, not the court, but in this case they're right. And now you're going to cry in your soup like the sore loser you are.

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM

      Torch, I might add that the justices concurring on the decision are the justices most likely to follow a philosophy of strict constructionism, meaning they apply the law as written and not as they "wish it had been written" or as they think it "should have been written". If you read the decision, there's not a single "penumbra" or "emanation" present.

      The left-wing justices/oracles tend more to reading minds and peering at chicken viscera to divine the "correct" meaning. It's typical of the left, though. You actually see it a lot around here from, ironically, the materialists.

      Delete
  3. I'd love to hear one of our resident crybaby fascists (KW, Hoo, Bachfiend, Troy) defend the practice of placing racist anti-Christian bigots who ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution onto the highest court.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No takers, I see. Racists, anti-Christian bigots, and those who ignore the constitution don't belong on the bench. It's rather hard to argue against that.

      --Francisca S.

      Delete
  4. rex on the roadMay 6, 2014 at 8:18 AM

    Read about this yesterday, Mike.
    Congratulation from up north. WAY up North currently.
    Thought of you when I read it, mate.
    Stay well down there. Hope to be on more frequently, soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blessings to you, Rex! Thanks for checking in. You're always welcome here.

      Mike

      Delete
  5. Troy, where does,

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,"

    prohibit prayer at public meetings?

    First, I know words that include more than four letters and don't include a reference to genitals are not your strong suit, but the amendment specifically says, "Congress," which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the amendment was directed to, I don't know, maybe, "Congress?"

    So how is a prayer at a public meeting a violation of the amendment that prohibits "Congress" from passing a law?

    Secondly, as mentioned, all the men who wrote and approved those words not only prayed at public meetings, they read the Bible? Were they schizophrenics? Or stupid? Or maybe the stupid one is the person who can't understand plain language or perhaps you understand it but are willingly twisting it which would make you dishonest as well as stupid. In any case, I'll stick with the founding fathers, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how is a prayer at a public meeting a violation of the amendment that prohibits "Congress" from passing a law?

      So by your reading it's OK if a state legislative body establishes an official state religion?

      Delete
    2. KW:

      From a constitutional standpoint, it's perfectly legal.

      I'd oppose it, because it is not a good idea.

      There are all sorts of things that are constitutional but aren't good ideas. We should debate the ideas and decide on them via the legislature. We should not make up constitutional "rules" that aren't in the constitution just to get our favorite ideas made into law.

      Government 101, first day in class, asshole.

      Delete
    3. First Troy, you are dodging the point as usual. Tell me how the plain language of the 1st amendment prohibits prayer at a public meeting. If you can't do that, then shut the f up. Nobody has time for your inane gum flapping.

      Secondly, if you were not so brain dead and had actually bothered to study a little history you would know that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, nearly every state in the union had an official or semiofficial state religion (technically a Christian denomination) and most were supported by state taxes and none saw the 1st amendment as curtailing it. The 1st amendment prohibits Congress for passing a law that establishes OR PROHIBITS THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF aka prayer at a public meeting. How a bone head like you can turn that into, "nobody can practice religion in public," is beyond human understanding.

      Delete
    4. I, the great troy, not the awesome KW, asked:

      So by your reading it's OK if a state legislative body establishes an official state religion?

      According to Egnor (you too, Little Dicky?):

      From a constitutional standpoint, it's perfectly legal.

      Really? It seems that plenty of legal scholars and erstwhile SCOTUS members believe the 14th amendment leads to a different conclusion. Whose judgement to trust? A deranged fundamentalist or... It's a tough call.

      Delete
    5. The Supreme Court may not have established a church yesterday, but they’ve given the government an opportunity to unambiguously establish which religion they favor. No sane person with business before a city council will leave the room or hum a tune during the pre-meeting Jesus-fest for fear of offending the governments displayed religious sensibilities. If you want a fair shake you would have no choice but to bow your head and pay respect to a god you don’t believe in. That’s the opposite of religious liberty. Up until a couple of days ago, the majority of Judges on every Supreme Court were smart enough to know this.

      -KW

      Delete
    6. troi:

      I'm not a fundamentalist (Catholics are quite different from fundamentalists). So much for your knowledge of Christianity.

      Of course "plenty of legal scholars and erstwhile SCOTUS members believe the 14th amendment leads to a different conclusion. " Plenty of legal scholars are assholes. The Establishment Clause, understood by its plain meaning and its original meaning, precludes a federal establishment of religion. A major purpose-- probably THE major purpose, of the Establishment Clause, was to protect state establishments of religion (many states had established churches.)

      The Incorporation Doctrine is dubious anyway-- it's not in the Constitution in any plain way-- but many legal scholars (who are not assholes) have argued cogently that the Establishment Clause is an anti-incorporation clause and thus can't be incorporated. It makes no sense to apply a Constitutional principle that the federal government can't get involved in established state churches so that the principle precludes established state churches.

      You can't logically incorporate and anti-incorporation Clause of the Constitution.

      Delete
    7. KW:

      [The Supreme Court may not have established a church yesterday, but they’ve given the government an opportunity to unambiguously establish which religion they favor.]

      Yep. There is no Constitutional prohibition on "favoring" one religion. The Creator referred to in the Declaration ain't Zeus. We are a Christian nation, by heritage and by ideology, and Christian values and precepts permeate our civic life. It is a blessing. If you don't like it, you can move to an atheist paradise (North Korea is nice this time of year), or you can pound sand.

      [No sane person with business before a city council will leave the room or hum a tune during the pre-meeting Jesus-fest for fear of offending the governments displayed religious sensibilities.]

      Yea. Atheists are so concerned about other people's feelings.

      [If you want a fair shake you would have no choice but to bow your head and pay respect to a god you don’t believe in.]

      We've had 240 years of civic prayer. Could you point me to the instances in which atheists have been harmed?

      [That’s the opposite of religious liberty. Up until a couple of days ago, the majority of Judges on every Supreme Court were smart enough to know this.]

      You arrogant piece of shit. You are the censor, demanding that judges inspect each civic rite with a magnifying glass to detect any illegal prayers, and you have the audacity to accuse people who believe in freedom of opposing religious liberty. Decisions about the content of civic rites should be made locally, by the people through their elected representatives. San Francisco won't likely have civic prayers. Atlanta likely will. It's good that people can decide in their own municipalities, according to local beliefs and customs.

      What's your fucking problem with freedom?

      Delete
    8. Egnor:

      A major purpose-- probably THE major purpose, of the Establishment Clause, was to protect state establishments of religion (many states had established churches.)

      Perhaps, but the Founding Fathers also realized that the first constitution would sooner or later become outdated and that's why amendments can update Constitution 1.0. Of course you don't agree with how certain amendments are interpreted by the judiciary, but tough shit. If you don't like it, perhaps you would feel more at home in Putin's Russia. I hear they can use some surgeons to repair vodka-induced brain-damage.

      By the way, calling legal scholars "assholes" because they disagree with your relatively uninformed opinion doesn't bolster your case very much at all. Not that my opinion is more informed than yours - it's far less since I'm Euro-trash.

      Delete
    9. Amendment to the Constitution is fine. If you want a pro-atheist amendment, start the amendment process-- it's arduous. It would be amusing to see you try. Have at it.

      Lying about the Constitution is not amending it. The Constitution says what it says, and prayer at government meetings is not an establishment of religion and therefore is not unconstitutional.

      Delete
  6. For an alternative perspective, see this blog post by GWU Law Professor Jonathan Turley: "An Unholy Mess: Supreme Court Votes 5-4 In Favor of Christian Prayers At Local Council Meetings."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthMay 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM

      The opinions of law professors are amusing and varied, but are always trumped by a majority on the SCOTUS.

      Delete
  7. This decision flies in the face of limited government and religious freedom. Now the government can force you to repeatedly participate in overtly Christian worship if you want to be a participant in, or do business with, the government. This is a great victory for Christian hegemony over the government, and a giant defeat for religious liberty.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your assessment that the government can force one to participate in "overtly Christian worship" is wholly unfounded. Anyone present can abstain from participation, thus, nobody's 1A rights are infringed. Wow, what a "victory" for Christians... The very fact that the SCOTUS is in a position to determine whether or not people are even allowed to exercise their 1A rights (and 4 out of 9 justices objected) should be considered an affront to liberty by every American citizen. Suppose they change their minds somewhere down the road?

      This government is anything but pro-Christian, as proven by the thoroughly unconstitutional HHS mandate and SS'M being forced through via judicial fiat.

      Delete
    2. KW:

      You don't have to pray. You can walk out, real a book, hum a tune, whatever.

      It's the same thing as if a particular political viewpoint is mentioned at a public meeting. I don't have a right not to hear "liberal" opinions. If I don't like the opinion expressed at the government meeting, tough shit. It's my problem, not everyone else's.

      You don't have a "right" not to hear prayers. If you don't like prayers, tough shit. It's your problem, not everyone else's.

      Don't democracies suck? Wouldn't it be nicer if everyone had to do exactly as you say? You atheists are totalitarian instinctively.

      Delete
    3. Egnor, the government should never have to say “tough shit” when they offend your religious sensibilities because they shouldn’t be offending them in the first place.
      I’ve worked in a lot of places and I’ve never once seen a minister come in to lead a prayer prior to a meeting, and I doubt anyone ever thought that their freedom of speech or freedom of religion was being infringed upon.
      Why is it that suddenly when somebody is working for the government they demand the right to subjugate everyone to prayer? It’s bad for business, and it will be bad for government.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. KW:

      [Egnor, the government should never have to say “tough shit” when they offend your religious sensibilities because they shouldn’t be offending them in the first place.]

      The government shouldn't "offend" people? What planet are you from? What a stupid thing to say. The government constantly offends practically everyone, in uncountable ways. Do you actually think there is a "on offense" clause in the Bill of Rights? ("Congress shall make no law offending anyone, especially atheist assholes...")

      [I’ve worked in a lot of places and I’ve never once seen a minister come in to lead a prayer prior to a meeting, and I doubt anyone ever thought that their freedom of speech or freedom of religion was being infringed upon.]

      There's nothing wrong with not having a prayer. It is a matter of local custom and the wishes of the people. I wouldn't go to San Francisco and sue the bastards in federal court for not having prayer. You shouldn't support suing folks in Greece New York for having prayer. Let the people decide locally. Federal judges have no business being Prayer Monitors-- that's what the Establishment Clause means, asshole.

      [Why is it that suddenly when somebody is working for the government they demand the right to subjugate everyone to prayer? It’s bad for business, and it will be bad for government.]

      You are the only one "demanding" in federal court. Otherwise, the people locally decide. If the people in a town don't want prayer at their town meetings, they can elect town officials who won't pray. Why is democracy so opaque to you? Why does everyone have to march in lockstep with your atheist ideology?

      Delete
    5. KW, no one's being >>subjugated to prayer.<< They're praying in your presence. You're free not to join in. That right is not in jeopardy and if were I'd take your side and fight that injustice.

      Do you not see the difference between someone forcing you to pray and someone praying near you? Are you afraid you'll catch Christian cooties or something?

      JQ

      Delete
  8. I want to ask all of our despondent commenters to stop crying in your beer for a moment and ask yourself what you've really lost. I think you'll come to the conclusion that you've lost nothing. You're still free not to pray, still free to positively assert that there is no God, still free to be anti-Christian bigots and a foulmouthed pseudointellectuals. All you'll have to do is tolerate something you don't like, which is what true tolerance is. (It's impossible to tolerate something you actually like, which is why liberals' claims to tolerance always ring so hollow.) In your own minds you're all quite adept at tolerance, so you should have no problem.

    Or maybe you'll come to a different conclusion and think that something very valuable was lost yesterday when the court decided according to what the Constitution actually says. Be honest--what you're really seeing vanish before your eyes is the foundation to the house of cards that you've built. If you can't forcibly silence prayer by law by passing off extra-Constitional catch phrases for the founders' words, it's a slippery slope from there. Next thing you know you won't be able to punish children for saying grace over their lunches, or prohibit the singing of Christmas carols in the post office. It's all getting very scary, very fast.

    Yes, I can see how someone who was so privileged for so long, who has wielded the billy club and the badge of the prayer police, would be very upset at yesterday's ruling.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see a curious lack of judicial supremacist rhetoric on this page. Suddenly the court isn't so wise, and suddenly no one is defending the court's decision by merely repeating over and over again that the matter is closed because the infallible court decided it.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny, isn't it? Whenever there's a ruling which infringes on liberty, particularly religious, it's sound legal doctrine in their view. But any ruling which actually preserves freedom is a breach of justice. That's because atheists mean to impose their destructive ideology on everyone by force of law. They want to punish Christians and squelch dissenting views, because these communists are just so tolerant.

      I miss the America of yesteryear.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      Atheists per se don't have an ideology. They have a worldview that there's no god(s). Atheists aren't necessarily Communists. In fact, because Communists are so rare nowadays, even in China, it's almost certain that any atheist living today you care to mention will not be a Communist.

      Delete
    3. bach:

      Atheists believe:

      There is no God or gods.
      There is no afterlife.
      There is no moral accountability after death.
      There is no objective moral law, independent of human opinions.
      Everything came from nothing.

      Sounds just like an ideology to me.

      Delete
    4. bach:

      Atheism has been the governing ideology of 20 or so nations in human history. It continues to govern several.

      Name the atheist-governed nations that have not been totalitarian.

      Delete
    5. Megnor,

      No - your list are all characteristics of a worldview, not an ideology.

      Worldviews explain how the world came to be the way it is. Ideologies proscribe the way the world should develop.

      Worldviews describe the past. Ideologies proscribe the future. Ideologies often have a delusion of a future utopia - such as with Christianity, Islam or Communism.

      Anyway - what is the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian? I think I've asked you in the past, and you've refused to answer. What is the difference?

      Delete