Thursday, May 8, 2014

Words Don't Work If They Aren't Read

Apparently some of those who object to my posts about Greece v Galloway haven't read the dissents written by Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor and the separate dissent written by Justice Breyer because none of them contained the opinion that a complete ban on prayers at town council meetings was required by the Constitution.   Justice Kagan said:

I respectfully dissent from the Court's opinion because I think the Town of Greece's prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality-the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian. I do not contend that principle translates here into a bright separationist line. To the contrary, I agree with the Court's decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), upholding the Nebraska Legislature's tradition of beginning each session with a chaplain's prayer. And I believe that pluralism and inclusion in a town hall can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality; such a forum need not become a religion-free zone. But still, the Town of Greece should lose this case. The practice at issue here differs from the one sustained in Marsh because Greece's town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given-directly to those citizens-were predominantly sectarian in content. Still more, Greece's Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment's promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.

To point out the passage relevant to my point, she said:

And I believe that pluralism and inclusion in a town hall can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality; such a forum need not become a religion-free zone.

In his dissent, Justice Breyer, who blog atheists were claiming as their representative on the Court last year, said:

The Court of Appeals further emphasized what it was not holding. It did not hold that "the town may not open its public meetings with a prayer," or that "any prayers offered in this context must be blandly 'nonsectarian.' " Id., at 33 . In essence, the Court of Appeals merely held that the town must do more than it had previously done to try to make its prayer practices inclusive of other faiths. And it did not prescribe a single constitutionally required method for doing so.

In my view, the Court of Appeals' conclusion and its reasoning are convincing. JUSTICE KAGAN's dissent is consistent with that view, and I join it. I also here emphasize several factors that I believe underlie the conclusion that, on the particular facts of this case, the town's prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause.

Which is an entirely reasonable stand to take, though one that is at odds with the position that no prayer is allowable at any government function.   That position would seem to have no support on the court at all and as a political issue it has been a consistent loser for the left that has been or been made to be associated with it.

A town council meeting is quite a different thing from a public school classroom where minor children are required to attend and where they would be subject to bullying and coercion so a different standard of what is allowable should be maintained.

Apparently a lot of the people who have been blabbing on the blogs over this haven't bothered to read the things they think they are agreeing with because the dissenting Justices didn't say what people think they said.

5 comments:

  1. I've seen this phenomenon over and over: headlines generate responses and comments.

    Actually reading the story, or in this case the legal opinions, and thinking about what they said, is simply too much trouble. Much easier to respond to headlines.

    Which are usually a gross distortion of what happened, or what's being reported. Especially true in the case of Court decisions, because everyone knows what is "legal" or "Constitutional" is what I think it is.

    Regardless of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Reality Community isn't about reality, it would seem. I just read another column in an established "leftist" site that asserted that Kagan's dissent would ban all prayer at town council meetings and that we're on the road to some kind of Xian-sharia state. My conclusion is that the would-be left isn't all that much better at reading than those people they condemn as stupidheads (though I have to say that, when you read them, many of them seem to have actually gone to the bother of having read what they're talking about) and that they never let the facts get in the way of their grooving on their many daily hate fixes.

    I'm old enough to recall when even prayer in schools was common, around here generally obviously Protestant prayers, and that period included the major era of liberal progress. Oddly, the ban on prayer in schools and manger scenes and ten-commandment plaques hasn't seemed to usher in a renaissance of liberal success in other areas.

    I'm tired of the play-left, the left that seems to dominate the internet "left". There's a reason that Democratic politicians don't listen to it. Other than in a few districts, they know they'd be ex-politicians if they tried to do the unreasonable and impossible things it demands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember prayer in schools, too; and I'm not sorry it isn't common anymore (I know some still blame it for "America's decline," but that remnant is so marginalized that even in the internet era it is almost invisible).

    But, yes, the deletion of prayer and manger scenes, etc. (which is good for allowing there are other points of view, and that prayer is to be taken seriously) hasn't changed things much.

    I'll pause a moment to reiterate my disdain for the Court's ruling in this last prayer case. I'd rather prayer be taken seriously, serious enough to bring offense to others not of the community of the one offering the prayer: that can be Xian, Jew, Muslim, atheist/agnostic; it can also be Southern Baptist, RC, Orthodox, MO Synod Lutheran, Mennonite, etc. Frankly, I'm offended by prayers offered by "conservative" Xians, more often than not, more than I'm bothered by a Tibetan Buddhist spinning a prayer wheel (and what if we just had somebody do that during a public meeting?).

    Anyway, back to the topic: yeah, the "left" on the internet is the crowd that complains loudest and does the least; at least in the majority of cases. They've found their like-minded community and are comfortable with their assumptions and presumptions.

    I discard them, as Molesworth would say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course the ban on teacher-principal etc. led prayer was a totally different matter, children couldn't discretely opt out of it and they were required to be in school. Not to mention that it was almost bound to be sectarian.

    As I said I don't like the ruling but I don't think it's going to be the end of democracy, the rulings that do that are almost certain to get a fraction of the notice this kind of distraction gets. The left has a difficult enough agenda as it is, requiring people to do things they'd rather not do, giving up unequal advantages. We don't need imaginary problems on top of those, requiring us to take up unpopular and unimportant issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You remind me there was a case recently that got no recognition, but was a much more important holding than this one.

    Now if I could just remember what it was (I saw the article early this morning, in connection with something else....)

    Even if I don't find it; yes, there are Court rulings far more important to the country than this one, and issues far more important to the republic than this one.

    ReplyDelete