Supreme Court Allows Prayer; Hypocritical Decision

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Tue May 06, 2014 4:38 pm

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The article on CNN lays out the case fairly well.

Pure hypocrisy. Why? Because the Justices would NOT abide the exact same argument if the prayer was to a nonchristian god/religion. The five Justices that voted to allow Christian prayer are all Catholic.

Intellectually honest Christians should be just as disgusted as atheists for the simple reason that they'd not abide such a decision if the "majority" being referred to in the arguments were muslim instead of Christian.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:50 pm

I haven't read the decision yet. I may have more to say after I read the majority and dissenting opinions, along with any concurrences.

But my gut reaction is that this is one of those fairly narrow exceptions the Court has carved out on the basis of history and tradition. It is probably similar to the cases that question "In God we trust" on U.S. currency.

What is different tho' and very short sighted is the fact the decision apparently calls for a "Chaplain of the Month" club, and that the Chaplain can be an atheist.

When I say 'short sighted' I am thinking of the likelihood of an opening 'prayer' by an atheist. It might go something like this:

"Recognizing that there is no god we must take personal responsibility for the decisions made today. We call upon that almighty power everyone is blessed with, that power of the unconscious mind, guided by our intuition and unclouded by superstition and archaic notions gods in the clouds who will give us guidance. We pray for clear thinking as we endeavor to make decisions that affect our community. We rejoice in the knowledge we have rational, intelligent minds that will guide us in our obligations to our constituents.
Amen."

Great way to start a government meeting. Fights and disruption are likely to break out before the chairman can ask if there is any 'old business.'

Now imagine what happens when the 'chaplain of the month is a Muslim.'

This must be a very poorly reasoned majority decision and one made with little or no reference to the practical realities or the 1st Amendment.

selah

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed May 07, 2014 12:49 am

What hypocrites they are, nothing like the Democrats saying that as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, as they prayed on the capital steps for Nigeria.

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Wed May 07, 2014 3:37 am

I'm as secular as they come, but this really doesn't bother me. I'm against it in principle, but there are far, far more important things for us to worry about. Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of girls in Nigeria, Uganda going on a genocidal crusade against the LGBT community, Russia fomenting civil war in Ukraine . . . I'd much rather spend time and energy protesting these injustices than getting up and arms over something that has little consequence.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed May 07, 2014 6:48 pm

bluethread wrote: What hypocrites they are, nothing like the Democrats saying that as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, as they prayed on the capital steps for Nigeria.

I don't understand what point you are making. Sorry. I started another thread about the kidnapping of the girls saying that Politicians in the US should NOT get involved but call upon Muslim countries to speak out and act against those groups who would do such things in the name of Islam and Allah. Did you mean to post on that thread?

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed May 07, 2014 6:50 pm

Haven wrote: I'm as secular as they come, but this really doesn't bother me. I'm against it in principle, but there are far, far more important things for us to worry about. Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of girls in Nigeria, Uganda going on a genocidal crusade against the LGBT community, Russia fomenting civil war in Ukraine . . . I'd much rather spend time and energy protesting these injustices than getting up and arms over something that has little consequence.

I didn't mean to imply that I'm worried or that anyone should be; I stated that their decision was hypocritical, since it calls for Christianity to be elevated by the government above other religions. It's in direct violation of the constitution and it's hypocritical, since they would not have made the same decision if the religion in question was Islam but all the rest of the facts and arguments were exactly the same. The issue is hypocrisy, not worry over the Supreme Court shredding the Constitution on a whim.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed May 07, 2014 6:51 pm

Danmark wrote: I haven't read the decision yet. I may have more to say after I read the majority and dissenting opinions, along with any concurrences.

But my gut reaction is that this is one of those fairly narrow exceptions the Court has carved out on the basis of history and tradition. It is probably similar to the cases that question "In God we trust" on U.S. currency.

What is different tho' and very short sighted is the fact the decision apparently calls for a "Chaplain of the Month" club, and that the Chaplain can be an atheist.

When I say 'short sighted' I am thinking of the likelihood of an opening 'prayer' by an atheist. It might go something like this:

"Recognizing that there is no god we must take personal responsibility for the decisions made today. We call upon that almighty power everyone is blessed with, that power of the unconscious mind, guided by our intuition and unclouded by superstition and archaic notions gods in the clouds who will give us guidance. We pray for clear thinking as we endeavor to make decisions that affect our community. We rejoice in the knowledge we have rational, intelligent minds that will guide us in our obligations to our constituents.
Amen."

Great way to start a government meeting. Fights and disruption are likely to break out before the chairman can ask if there is any 'old business.'

Now imagine what happens when the 'chaplain of the month is a Muslim.'

This must be a very poorly reasoned majority decision and one made with little or no reference to the practical realities or the 1st Amendment.

selah

I highly recommend that you read the article, then.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed May 07, 2014 7:22 pm

Hatuey wrote:
bluethread wrote: What hypocrites they are, nothing like the Democrats saying that as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, as they prayed on the capital steps for Nigeria.

I don't understand what point you are making. Sorry. I started another thread about the kidnapping of the girls saying that Politicians in the US should NOT get involved but call upon Muslim countries to speak out and act against those groups who would do such things in the name of Islam and Allah. Did you mean to post on that thread?

No, I mean to point out that the liberal left has no problem with Christian prayer when they are doing it to gain political favor, but appose it when it is merely ceremonial. Kind of like yelling about separation of church and state, while having political fund raisers in churches.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed May 07, 2014 8:30 pm

bluethread wrote:
Hatuey wrote:
bluethread wrote: What hypocrites they are, nothing like the Democrats saying that as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, as they prayed on the capital steps for Nigeria.

I don't understand what point you are making. Sorry. I started another thread about the kidnapping of the girls saying that Politicians in the US should NOT get involved but call upon Muslim countries to speak out and act against those groups who would do such things in the name of Islam and Allah. Did you mean to post on that thread?
No, I mean to point out that the liberal left has no problem with Christian prayer when they are doing it to gain political favor, but appose it when it is merely ceremonial. Kind of like yelling about separation of church and state, while having political fund raisers in churches.

That puzzles me. The 'liberal left' is well populated with Christians. The just don't appreciate right wing fundamentalist 'Christians.' The liberal version of Christianity supports social programs and believes in helping the poor. Kind of like what Jesus preached. Liberal Christians are so embarrassed by the hateful antics of the right wing variety that they are reticent to call themselves Christians in public. They don't deny Christ, they just don't want to be associated with the Larry Haggard/prosperity gospel faction.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed May 07, 2014 10:26 pm

bluethread wrote:No, I mean to point out that the liberal left has no problem with Christian prayer when they are doing it to gain political favor, but appose it when it is merely ceremonial. Kind of like yelling about separation of church and state, while having political fund raisers in churches.

I guess I'm still not sure what any of that has to do with what I am saying. I'm talking about the Supreme Court Justices being hypocritical in that they are allowing an action from Christians that they would not allow from Muslims. Perhaps debates about the "liberal left" and "political fundraisers" should be best carried out in threads for that purpose?