A person goes to court, to the polls, to a naturalization ceremony — and a government official or his hand-picked minister asks her, as the first order of official business, to stand and pray with others in a way conflicting with her own religious beliefs. Perhaps she feels sufficient pressure to go along — to rise, bow her head, and join in whatever others are saying: After all, she wants, very badly, what the judge or poll worker or immigration official has to offer. Or perhaps she is made of stronger mettle, and she opts not to participate in what she does not believe — indeed, what would, for her, be something like blasphemy. She then must make known her dissent from the common religious view, and place herself apart from other citizens, as well as from the officials responsible for the invocations. And so a civic function of some kind brings religious differences to the fore: That public proceeding becomes (whether intentionally or not) an instrument for dividing her from adherents to the community’s majority religion, and for altering the very nature of her relationship with her government.At the non-elite level, say Winter Garden, Florida, the mayor himself performs the invocation, calls out a citizen who fails to rise on his order, chastises the citizen who quietly cites his desire and right to decline to participate, and — when the man also declines to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance kicks the man out of the meeting. Witness Mayor John Rees:
September 1, 2014
At the elite level, the Supreme Court cogitates about the subtle psychological pressure to pray when a private chaplain performs an invocation at a government meeting.
Here, for example, is Justice Kagan dissenting in the Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
The mayor was acting silly.
The guy may have been trying to provoke the mayor, all right, but he was not being disruptive to the meeting or disrepectful to anyone else.
Kagan is right.
The Mayor of Winter Garden is appallingly wrong and pigheaded. The freedom not to believe is just as important as the freedom to believe. And the right to peacefully dissent or disagree with the majority's view is fundamental to a democracy.
All that crap at the beginning of meetings does is assure me that I will spend even more of my life wasting time in official meetings.
Making people stand up for it? What a petty little man, wanting to waste more of everybody's time before the meeting even starts.
Does he think he is judge and everyone is supposed to rise when he walks in? (Speaking of pointless power trip rituals)
The mayor in Wintergarden acted stupidly.
Could Kagan be unaware of the command "All Rise" announced every time a judge enters a courtroom?
I suppose universal fealty to the bench is different when compared to mere worship of the Almighty.
Or perhaps she is made of stronger mettle, and she opts not to participate in what she does not believe — indeed, what would, for her, be something like blasphemy.
Ah, the noble liberal standing against the unstated tyranny and oppression of the religious zealots.
By the way, the mayor of Winter Garden was out of line.
On a happier note: This is what passes for religious oppression and controversial behavior in 2014.
That was so bad at so many levels. All White, all males, all acting pious in public and making a show of a prayer that is merely a speech telling God what he wants done. I smell Southern Baptists.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, according to the First Amendment which permits it.
It would be convenient if the First Amendment prohibited it. But SCOTUS pretending they cannot read English is all we have prohibiting it so far.
I too, take exception to Jusyice Kagan's rhetoric.
It is like entering a Catholic church. It is not proper to engage in the Catholic rituals if you don't believe in them, and probably won't do it right anyway, so just fade into a pew a the rear and sit quietly. Do not disrespect those who do believe.
I expect that this mayor will get his hand slapped pretty quickly and that will be the end of this. No one has to rise for the Pledge.
This was decided long ago as prohibited, in the matter of saying the school pledge of allegiance.
John and Ken argue with angry callers on the matter, after a very slow and boring start talking to a plaintiff and her lawyer, real audio. Stick with it.
They want you to recite a poem.
They were all wearing the same blue shirt. Kinda look like convicts.
You can't conclude just from the video that the mayor is a total douche bag, but he's definitely on the spectrum.
"Could Kagan be unaware of the command "All Rise" announced every time a judge enters a courtroom? I suppose universal fealty to the bench is different when compared to mere worship of the Almighty."
This is part of what the Justices agonize over at the elite level.
In Lee v. Weisman, the graduation prayer case, it was Justice Scalia in dissent:
"To begin with the latter: The Court's notion that a student who simply sits in "respectful silence" during the invocation and benediction (when all others are standing) has somehow joined — or would somehow be perceived as having joined — in the prayers is nothing short of ludicrous. We indeed live in a vulgar age. But surely "our social conventions," ibid., have not coarsened to the point that anyone who does not stand on his chair and shout obscenities can reasonably be deemed to have assented to everything said in his presence. Since the Court does not dispute that students exposed to prayer at graduation ceremonies retain (despite "subtle coercive pressures," ante, at 8) the free will to sit, cf. ante, at 14, there is absolutely no basis for the Court's decision. It is fanciful enough to say that "a reasonable dissenter," standing head erect in a class of bowed heads, "could believe that the group exercise signified her own participation or approval of it," ibid. It is beyond the absurd to say that she could entertain such a belief while pointedly declining to rise."
Maybe that's more how you think about it.
Anyway, rising for the judges is showing respect for government officials as they perform their functions that are properly governmental functions, the very work that citizens are in the room to witness or participate in.
Prayer isn't the same thing. It's an add on, and it arguably should be excluded altogether under the Establishment Clause. But concessions to tradition have been made and the appearance of hostility to religion is avoided in the moderate Establishment Clause doctrine that has evolved over the years.
"They were all wearing the same blue shirt."
I've heard of blackshirts and brownshirts. In America, we have the dreaded blueshirts.
At least for now, they seem mostly to be idiots, but we need to be vigilant and stop them while they still seem like clowns.
These heathens have to remember that we ARE a Christian nation. He's lucky he only got kicked out of the meeting and not ran out of town on a rail.
Do they clone these guys in Winter Garden? Issue uniforms? And where is Betamax when we really need him? I can't possibly do this justice myself.
And it still bums me that Sir Archy is gone.
Mayor Dickhead sent out the blue-shirt edict to all the councilMEN.
"In order to honor our service members, we will all wear blue shirts at all council meetings."
He's lucky he only got kicked out of the meeting and not ran out of town on a rail.
Or dunked in pond until he confessed to being a warlock, then hanged.
"I too, take exception to Jusyice Kagan's rhetoric. It is like entering a Catholic church. It is not proper to engage in the Catholic rituals if you don't believe in them, and probably won't do it right anyway, so just fade into a pew a the rear and sit quietly. Do not disrespect those who do believe."
No. It is not like entering a Catholic church. A Catholic church is not a government building, and your choice to go there is not to do business with the government. To go into a church is perfectly voluntary, and while you may do that without believing the religion, you should feel an obligation to show respect, and your failure to stand on cue could result in your exclusion without violating any legal principle.
To be excluded from a city council meeting unless you perform a religious exercise or take an oath of allegiance is a different matter altogether. The government has the power the belongs to the people, and the various officials who are the stewards of that power commit a terrible wrong when they appropriate it to compel speech and religion from the people who need or choose to interact with those officials.
Or dunked in pond until he confessed to being a warlock, then hanged
Now you're just being silly! Christians would NEVER do anything like that. Especially in the deep south.
A Mayor abusing his office. I am SHOCKED. Do I condone this? No. Is it my business? No. Don't like it? Vote him out of office. The courts should not take over the job of the electorate by forcing their personal morality on an entire community.
All the while police officers are arresting citizens that video tape them.
The president refuses to enforce selected laws (immigration)
Really, SCOTUS has made this way too difficult by inserting themselves into areas the constitution has specifically prohibited from ruling on.
1st amendment clearly states 'congress shall make no law'
Is a mayor 'congress making a law'?
No
Is teaching creation in public schools 'congress making a law'?
These all have electoral solutions.....if the people see a problem, that needs a solution.
That was nothing. The fun starts when they chose the Hymns to sing.
And just mouthing the words is UNACCEPTABLE.
No, no Professor.
I absolutely agreed that the citizen in Winter Garden was in the right, and the mayor was wrong - at least as far as what is reported in that article goes.
Americans have all sort of strange rituals like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance first thing in the morning in the public schools, opening official meetings with an "ecumenical" prayer, and whatever they do at Friday night high school football games.
So just ride with it. There is no need to make a federal case of it from either side, unless some idiot decides to get on his high horse and make an ass of himself.
I chair a local governmental unit in South Carolina. By tradition that long predates my arrival there, a prayer and the pledge are said at the beginning of each meeting. We do not have a chaplain and I am quite sure that our board would decline to do so if it were suggested. The prayer is said by a board member chosen at the last moment by me. I lead the pledge.
I think all of our board members were raised in the Christian tradition. A few, like me, are no longer practitioners. I do not know exactly how many. Others are very observant.
Observant and non observant alike are requested to deliver the prayer, and all do. Everyone keeps it as non controversial as they can. Never a reference to Jesus or any other biblical figure (except God) that I can recall.
It is inconceivable to me that any of our board members would react in any public way to someone who refused to stand or otherwise participate. We try to make the prayer an exercise in humility rather than an opportunity to demonstrate our superiority. Typically we give thanks for the opportunity to serve together and ask for wisdom and judgment as we deliberate.
Our board is a mix of races, age levels (though we skew old) and backgrounds. My immediate predecessor was female as is the vice chair. A previous chair (still a member) is black.
Winter Garden probably once was the norm. Now it's an outlier.
Thank God for that.
Prayer isn't the same thing. It's an add on, and it arguably should be excluded altogether under the Establishment Clause
Why do so many Lefties have dyslexia when it comes to the First Amendment? It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
I have been in a number of Catholic churches, and I have never heard of anyone being ejected who was not guilty of some obnoxious behavior. Keep quiet, and you are more than welcome.
To be excluded from a city council meeting unless you perform a religious exercise or take an oath of allegiance is a different matter altogether
How about being excluded for being disruptive while others attempt to use their right to perform the religious exercise or take the oath of alliegiance?
You have the right not to participate, but you don't have the right to be an asshole, or prevent others from participating.
The most disappointing thing about the Winer Garden clip is not that the mayor reacted as he did. He's an idiot. But no other board member objected to his actions. Maybe they really are clones.
At least for now, they seem mostly to be idiots, but we need to be vigilant and stop them while they still seem like clowns.
Yeah!!!!
The last thing this country needs is more loyal citizens and more religious belief.
We obviously need more assholes and religious intolerance!
"How about being excluded for being disruptive while others attempt to use their right to perform the religious exercise or take the oath of alliegiance?
You have the right not to participate, but you don't have the right to be an asshole, or prevent others from participating."
So the mayor should have ejected himself?
a government official or his hand-picked minister asks her,
Kagan: Men are bad, women (and grammar) are victims.
DH said...
I suppose universal fealty to the bench is different when compared to mere worship of the Almighty.
Judges are egotistical hypocrites.
Dishonest egotistical hypocrites, too, since their jury instructions are nearly always blatant lies.
Madisonfell said
"Now you're just being silly! Christians would NEVER do anything like that. Especially in the deep south."
You will have to show me that part of the New Testement that you used to smeared the entire Christian Faith.
I am sure you believe that all Christians act the same way. Just like all Democrats leave their paramour to die, while they hide from the cops an sober up.
So the mayor should have ejected himself?
What the mayor did on the 2.11 minutes of the tape was wrong. But I am betting that this was a deliberate provocation, and that the asshole holding the camera was deliberately acting in such a way as to cause a confrontation and get thrown out.
How much do you want to bet that the asshole with the camera regularly attends the meeting, and has been thrown out often in the past for being disruptive?
Yes he has the right not to stand. That doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.
Why are the Left's heroes always assholes making life difficult for others?
Ann said,
"Anyway, rising for the judges is showing respect for government officials as they perform their functions that are properly governmental functions, the very work that citizens are in the room to witness or participate in."
You ignore the fact that the judge serves at the discretion of the people
I suppose if you ignore the founding of the Nation, that is true. But in practice that established the tradition,Govt officials are acting because of the Grace of God,at the service of the people, (shall have no other Gods before me)
So the people rise for God, not his servants, the court, that is established by the people.
Hmmm. Are the Supreme Court Justices feeling bad now about shutting down the expression of religious faith in public?
Is that why they still twist these ideas around and around? It has been 50 years since they turned a Yes Amendment into a No amendment just because they could get away with it.
Professor Althouse:
I object to the government's imposition of rising in courts and for other governmental functions because it makes the "differently abled" feel excluded from the majority because of their physical infirmities. How dare you and the government take a position that excludes so many people?
I know you'll pretend that you can "reasonably accommodate" me by simply saying a wheelchair bound person has no duty to stand. But the very act of excusing a wheelchair bound person from standing is to make note of the differences and to be less inclusive. How dare you be exclusive!?!
/Leftist
AA: Anyway, rising for the judges is showing respect for government officials as they perform their functions that are properly governmental functions, the very work that citizens are in the room to witness or participate in.
Judges rising for citizens are showing respect for the citizens they serve. But they don't bother, do they? Because it never occurred to them.
Or howzabout:
Anyway, rising for the DMV employees is showing respect for government officials as they perform their functions that are properly governmental functions, the very work that citizens are in the room to witness or participate in.
Every time I see the President appear at a "National Prayer Breakfast" all I can do is pray he doesn't really believe any of that Bullshit and is just faking it.
I don't like government prayer or courts judging people by their religious beliefs. I have a real concern that were a judge to know my beliefs he would treat me unfairly. I've had employers do it and I've seen judges do it to others. If one parent is church going and another isn't, guess who gets the kids living with them.
My exception is the military. I won't bow my head even if someone might say I must during a prayer in formation, but if having a public prayer is what it takes to get my Marines to kill more enthusiastically, I'm all for it.
“he doesn’t come to the meetings because he cares about the city."
I'm sure the mayor wouldn't want votes from citizens who don't "care" about the city.
It is pretty obvious that this person came to the meeting for the sole purpose of agitating the mayor - and succeeded, which is the mmayor's fault. He should have just ignored the pest.
Now, if this person, instead of just sitting while everybody else were standing, had remained standing while everybody else sat down, or was operating an old-fashioned noisy camera, thus creating a distraction and disturbing the meeting, the mayor would have been justified, but as it was, no.
The mayor should re-read his bible. I'd suggest the book of Daniel, say chapter 3.
The polite dissenter guy did everyone a favor. He stood up to the men pretending they were high guardians offering god prayer, and nothing came of it at all.
Like the priests of baal at Mt Carmel, the god they were piously giving their speech at was asleep.
If only people were consistent in their protests of religion and faith. Oh, well. Democracy, or rather activists, rules.
Basically, Justice Kagan's woman of sterner mettle, is just an overgrown teenager throwing a tantrum.
Iowan2 said: "So the people rise for God, not his servants, the court, that is established by the people."
Seems right. God is justice, one of the all-encompassing attributes. Even the heathen source their wisdom to someone or something. At this point in our history and here in the US, it just happens to be God.
My ex-wife's sister found religion. At Thanksgiving Dinner she insisted on saying a long grace prior to the meal. It seemed a propitious time to reach for the outside slice from the turkey which everyone seems to covet. Everyone gave me a dirty look. It's amazing how intolerant these religious types are. Isn't tolerance a Christian virtue?
Having groups of people recite anything in unison, including the pledge of allegiance began creeping me out in high school. I stopped saying the pledge of allegiance in my senior year. I do stand though out of respect for others.
Public prayers also annoy me, but whatever floats your boat. (I was raised in a very religious family and the scriptures do say to pray in secret. Funny how few seem to follow that literally.)
Being born and raised a Norwegian, I think it is inappropriate, but "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and when in America, as the Americans.
What immediately jumps out at me is we're talking about the freedom not to pray in the face of pressure to conform... as opposed to the freedom not to support/participate in same-sex celebrations. How Justice Kagan's argument (which isn't bad) applies to the freedom of religious people not to support behaviors which violate their convictions is painfully obvious.
"Anyway, rising for the judges is showing respect for government officials as they perform their functions that are properly governmental functions, the very work that citizens are in the room to witness or participate in. "
What grants them the automatic expectation of respect and why is performing a ritual to demonstrate 'respect' an obligation on those who don't believe those officials merit respect?
Wow, talk about an anachronism "..rising for the judges is showing respect for government officials....."
Has anyone here actually had any respect for any government officials? I may have years ago, before it became clear that they are all, with out exception, corrupt and power hungry.
That shit needs to go.
Judges are also afforded public tokens of respect in the hope that it will rub off on them, and they will take themselves and their work seriously.
The last thing in the world you want is a judge who thinks you don't respect him, so why should he?
To be excluded from a city council meeting unless you perform a religious exercise or take an oath of allegiance is a different matter altogether. The government has the power the belongs to the people, and the various officials who are the stewards of that power commit a terrible wrong when they appropriate it to compel speech and religion from the people who need or choose to interact with those officials. "
That the mayor may have acted foolishly isn't in debate. However he isn't the one who ejected the man. It was the police office who did. One would expect those tasked with enforcing the law to have some understanding of what it is they are enforcing and you can't uphold the law by breaking it. Apparently basic constitutional rights weren't taught to this cop. Just because the mayor told him to eject the guy doesn't mean the cop had to do so. Still I suspect the guy was trying to be provocative as noted by other commentators. And speaking of subtle and not so subtle psychological pressures maybe Kagan ought STFU since the courts have been routinely exerting those very same pressures and not always that subtly either.
That the mayor told him to eject the person from the council chambers most certainly meant the officer had to eject him.
City property, chain of command, and all that. Take it up with the judge, who will decide if the mayor was right or not, and leave the cop out of it.
I've had a great judge in Jefferson County CO for a traffic accident and a great, confidence-inducing judge who presided over a pro team against little old me.
I never paid a dime. Like I told the folks at the start.
Without an honorable judge though, I woulda been toast.
So here's to Colorado (outside of where I live now although in the same state...) Justice.
"Why do so many Lefties have dyslexia when it comes to the First Amendment? It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."
Unless we have freedom from religion, we don't have freedom of religion. This is elementary.
"Why are the Left's heroes always assholes making life difficult for others?"
People who are willing to say "No!" in the face of public pressure and opprobrium are not always the most easy-going, go-along-to-get-along personalities...and they are the ones who usually advance freedom while the rest of us keep our heads down trying not to be noticed. They're not "making life difficult for others," they're willing to take the heat and stand up and protest that which many others also find disagreeable but lack the courage to say so.
For a while, I was a member of the local Republican town committee in my little Connecticut town. We started every meeting with the pledge of allegiance, but that was a non-governmental meeting. The town meeting, held annually to vote on the town budget and open to all residents (although only registered voters could vote, and they had to show picture ID like a driver's license), had no prayers and no pledge of allegiance.
bad link trying again
Derrida
"[W]hen I was young my first rebellion against my religious environment was to do with public prayer..."
They're not "making life difficult for others," they're willing to take the heat and stand up and protest that which many others also find disagreeable but lack the courage to say so.
Or at least that's what you assholes keep telling yourselves.....
This will all be resolved quickly, as the Town attorney, explains to the Mayor, and the Police Chief, how things work in the United States of America...The Mayor will issue an official apology at the start of the next meeting,and explain he was ignorant of the rights of citizens in this country.
The Mayor will issue an official apology at the start of the next meeting,and explain he was ignorant of the rights of citizens in this country.
Bet he doesn't. And I bet that the asshole is back and gets himself thrown out again.
Post a Comment