Scalia Rebukes Justices on Prayer Case

[J.A.I]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o_su_co/scotus_school_prayer&cid=558&ncid=716

WASHINGTON - Two of the Supreme Court's most conservative members delivered an unusual public rebuke to more liberal justices Monday, accusing them of ducking an important church-state fight over mealtime prayers at a taxpayer-funded military college.

Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said the court should have taken the case to answer for the first time whether its ban on school-sponsored prayer for young children and high schoolers applies to college students as well.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

With the Supreme Court rebuff, the ruling of a lower court stands. That court said the nightly prayers violate the Constitution's ban on state promotion of religion.

Good.

 

[Mason209]

As long as the prayers aren't manditory and are student-led, I have no problems with it.

 

[Momzilla]

I am quite disappointed that the court didn't take the case. It's well settled that prayers of the type at issue in the VMI case are unconstitutional in public elementary and secondary schools, where children are involved. Here, however, the situation is different--the students are adults, who deliberately chose to attend VMI. No one is forced to participate in the prayer. Under these circumstances, I think there is a strong argument to be made that the prayer does not offend the Constitution.

 

[crazyfingers]

As long as the prayers aren't manditory and are student-led, I have no problems with it.

However at VMI, they are pretty much mandatory because the school is highly regemented, people behave as though they are expected to do it even if, technically, they are not.

 

[Mason209]

Then I would agree with the lower courts ruling.

 

[Gunny]

No one is forced to participate in the prayer. Under these circumstances, I think there is a strong argument to be made that the prayer does not offend the Constitution.

Amen.

 

[crazyfingers]

People who actually would like to know the facts of the case might read it here

Regarding that man Scalia and his dissent, here is what Justice Stevens says about it.

The second reason justifying a denial of certiorari is the absence of a direct conflict among the Circuits. The Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have rejected constitutional challenges to state universities’ inclusion of a nondenominational prayer or religious invocation in their graduation ceremonies, reasoning that college-age students are not particularly “susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity,” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 593 (1992). See Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F. 3d 232 (CA6 1997); Tanford v. Brand, 104 F. 3d 982 (CA7 1997). The Fourth Circuit endorsed that principle in theory, but found it unhelpful in this case because of the features of VMI that distinguish it from more traditional institutions of higher education—for example, its use of the "adversative" method and its emphasis on submission and conformity. 327 F. 3d, at 371–372. Given the unique features of VMI, we do not know how the Fourth Circuit would resolve a case involving prayer at a state university, or, indeed, how the Sixth or Seventh Circuits would analyze the supper prayer at issue in this case. Thus, while the importance of this case might have justified a decision to grant, it is not accurate to suggest that a conflict of authority would have mandated such a decision.

Scalia's dissent

Steven's response

 

[crazyfingers]

Amen.

I suggest that you actually read the case before makeing such a statement.

 

[Gunny]

I suggest that you actually read the case before makeing such a statement.

I have and thank-you for your suggestion, sir.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

Momzilla: I think there is a strong argument to be made that the prayer does not offend the Constitution.
Gunny: Amen.



We're all ears.

 

[reverend B]

i still find it baffling why anyone needs someone to lead them in prayer. i can handle it on my own, especially when Jesus said the recommended way was to do it in private. that is what we are truly fighting for in these cases. the right to have someone express our needs to God for us and let us go along for the prayerful ride. people who lead prayer can often instill quite offensive doctrine into the prayer life of others and become a burden to faith. talk to the Father yourself, and listen for answers for yourself. then we can all pray together in the classroom, jews, muslims, christians and all, and the pagans can read. who could stop us? just keep it between you and who you pray to, and skip the dubiously qualified leader.

 

[JPPT1974]

Sometimes the Supreme Court/Federal Courts needs to stay out of the state and/or local courts business. If the locals need help, they will ask for it!! Keep those prayers between yourselves is great thinking Rev B.

 

[praying]

talk to the Father yourself, and listen for answers for yourself. then we can all pray together in the classroom, jews, muslims, christians and all, and the pagans can read. who could stop us? just keep it between you and who you pray to, and skip the dubiously qualified leader.

As usual great post.

 

[Momzilla]

Momzilla: I think there is a strong argument to be made that the prayer does not offend the Constitution.
Gunny: Amen.



We're all ears.

I'd love to make it--especially since the case was decided by the court I work for--but alas, I have work to do and don't have time to construct it. (the basis of it concerns coercion, which is a primary concern of the establishment clause. Kids are assumed to be vulnerable to coercion of the type involved in corporate prayer; adults, traditionally, have been assumed not to be vulnerable to that type of coercioin. VMI cadets are adults, and moreover, they had options to avoid the prayer.) Besides, if I recall correctly from when I did review the opinions (several months ago), the arguments on each side were pretty well laid out in the majority and the dissent at the circuit level. I think someone has already provided a link to the decision.

And just for the record, when I say "I think there is a strong argument to be made" regarding a proposition, I don't mean that the proposition is necessarily true. IOW, I don't necessarily think the prayer is constitutional, I just think it might be, and that it's an important enough issue to warrant a grant of certiorari.

 

[crazyfingers]

Sometimes the Supreme Court/Federal Courts needs to stay out of the state and/or local courts business. If the locals need help, they will ask for it!! Keep those prayers between yourselves is great thinking Rev B.

Given that certain parts of the US Constitution are binding on the states, the First Amendment for example, I suggest that your comments are made out of ignorance of the law. Or do you actually suggest that states should be immune from the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution?

I also suggest that a local did need help. That's why the lawsuit was filed. The local believed that VMI was practicing religious coersion. The courts agreed.

 

[VivZ]

I like anthony scalia. He's very smart and attractive.

 

[crazyfingers]

I like anthony scalia. He's very smart and attractive.

He belongs in a cave.

 

[fieldsofwind]

I'm a senior at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. I'm graduating in 2 weeks... and I'll be heading into the Navy afterwards. (Sorry Gunny... but at least I'm going to try to do a job in the Navy similar to that of your brethren in the Corps.)

This particular case affected me personally, unlike the rest of the posters here. Our school was affected by that court's decision against VMI because we also fall under their jurisdiction.

First of all, no cadet is forced to pray... to believe... to agree... etc.

Secondly, it is a tradition that has been carried on since 1842, and The Citadel hasn't been doing too bad of a job producing top notch citizens. Needless to say, our traditions have worked without flaw for a long long long time.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out that this is another case where the overwhelming majority is ruled by the overwhelming minority. About 98 percent of our student body wanted the mealtime prayer kept in place as it was-- student led, three times daily Monday through Thursday and twice on Friday.

Where do they get the idea that they can stop a voluntary group prayer made by one student to a group of students gathered in a mess-hall? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does the current idea of "separation of church and state" get its collective basis from? Reading our founder's works on such issues makes it quite clear that the current abandonment of God in public life as currently practiced by the "left" has nothing in common with our founder's thoughts about the subject. It seems to me that a whole lot of laws have been made banning the ability of any "public" entity to acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Living God, and also the One upon whom this country was founded. The simple acknowledgement of God by a "public" entity (be it a school, a police station, a City Garbage Unit, etc) is not in any way a "law" regarding an establishment of religion requiring people to adhere one way or another or face the consequences. Any argument otherwise is simply a debate over minute particulars about the word "law" or "respecting the establishment of", etc. The founders didn't want another England... (Our whole Bill of Rights reflects our founder's interest in making sure weren't going to become another England.) The entire idea of "separation of church and state" as it's ruled on today is becoming as oppressive as the very laws requiring an establishment of religion that our founders wanted to avoid.


The ruling is as bad of a blow to our school as has been received to date.




In his diary entry dated February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God...What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

On July 1, 1776, John Adams declared before the Continental Congress, as the 13 colonies were getting ready to sever ties from Great Britain:

"Before God, I believe the hour has come. My judgement approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it. And I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and Independence for ever!"

On July 3, 1776, John Adams made this statement, regarding America's decision the previous day to declare independence from Great Britain:

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America, to be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival, commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty from one end of the Continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore."

Perhaps some excerpts from George Washington's prayer journal:

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html

How separated from God were our founders???

There is so so so much more info like the above out there about the above persons and our many other founders... I think their thoughts are clear.

 

[praying]

"I'm a senior at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. I'm graduating in 2 weeks... "

Congratulations

Okay let me read the rest of the post