Here is a brief summary as given by CNN:

The links below are but a few that are out there. My only intention with these was to try to have a broad range of perspectives.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/op...-new-blessing/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/politi...public-prayer/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...gh-court-finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...s-legislative-
prayer-at-council-meetings/2014/05/05/dc142ede-cf9d-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcaria...7672361.column

Absolutely terrible decision and effectively establishes Christianity as the US state religion.

Well there has been a long standing contradiction between state/federal and local rules on this issue, and this at least resolves that contradiction. So as much as consistency in the laws is a virtue, its a good thing.

The major takeaway - a takeaway whose consequences may take some time to flush out - is the shift to interpreting establishment clause as being tested via coercion. As in, a government action violates establishment clause if it coerced people on the issue of religion, as opposed to the government merely endorsing religion.

The main issue here is that coercion is strictly defined, and this law makes not just coercion to be the test, but a strict version of coercion. For instance, the govenrment can't force partipation in state endorsed religious activities. We probably all agree on that, but I would suggest that this is too strong a definition of coercion.

Probably every atheist on this forum has experienced a looser version of coercion, consisting of a kind of peer pressure to conform. We find ourselves saying amen at family Christmas recitation of grace, we mumble through the Lord's Prayer in high school, sing the word God in anthems, and so on. The point is that there is pressure to conform and entrench such cultural things like religious expression. I think the word coercion can rightly be used here, but it is obviously a lower standard of coercion than the high standard set by the Kennedy opinion.

Now the above is talking about social situations, where there is nothign courts can (or should) do. But if we restrict to issues of governance, such as prayers before local government meetings, I do think a meaningful sense of coercion exists, and that this violates most reasonable views of the separation of church and state. Having a de facto - even if it isn't de jure - practice of everyone participating in a Christian prayer session before meetings (potentially on issues like abortion or gay marriage) certainly doesn't seem to fit a plain reading view of separation of church and state. It is only on the double whammy of first making the test be coercion and second making the standard of coercion very high that one arrives at this relatively weak interpretation of separation of church and state.



nonsense.

I think it's interesting on how much focus/distinction was placed on that these meetings are assumed to involve primarily adults.

From Kennedy's opinion (citing previous opinions);
"Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith. "

"Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation reflecting his or her own convictions."

"Neither choice represents an unconstitutional imposition as to mature adults, who “presumably” are “not readily susceptible to religious indoctrination or peer pressure.”

--

Looks to me like they wanted to be very clear that this opinion would not transcend to say, allowing classrooms to start with a "ceremonial" prayer.

Raises the question of what happens with groups start bringing vans full of kids to city hall meetings so they can remove this "primarily adults" assumption, and now create an environment with impressionable youth.

This is probably uninteresting to the courts as one-off events such as tours probably do not warrant a sufficient concern for an establishment claim. This is especially true since the analysis of the prayers must be taken as a pattern of behavior, so a one time visit may not even qualify for consideration.

not as a one-off, yea it would have to be every time. Or if the meetings are televised or livesteamed, there may not be a good way to verify who the viewing audience is. That's probably rare nowadays, but could become increasingly common in the future.

My main point is that relying on a determination of the audience makeup weakens and narrows the protection of the ruling.

I believe that it was noted in one of the articles that the supreme court's approach to these issues is historically narrow. Essentially, they rule on a case-by-case basis. This ruling is not expected to extend well to other situations.

Greece puts 1st Amendment on slippery slope.

From what I can tell, the current court at least has consistently tended to try and make these religion-in-public-life issues on a case by case basis and not make sweeping claims.

So yes, I think the possibility for slippery slopes definitely occurs. But it requires a court willing to travel down the slippery slope. That hasn't happened yet, at least.

I find the alarmism quite amusing.

I think the absence of a possibility for slippery slopes probably means the government is too restrictive and draconian. What makes the government functional is its ability to find balance between competing interests. The impossibility of a slippery slope means that some interest has been completely closed off from the conversation.

Usually a slippery slope means the opposite. As in, the extremes where one side has unilaterally won is at the "bottom" of the slippery slope. And the balancing of multiple factors and pragmatic case-by-case situations is at the "top" of various slippery slopes.

In this case, there are various slippery slopes that end it "government can never say the word religion in any context ever" and "government mandates Christianity from all citizens" or things like this. Where we actually live is a balance between the ideals of separation of church and state, and of respecting a citizenry who is overwhelmingly religious. I typically think the balance between these competing interests is just a bit off, but not completely ridiculous either.

As in, I'd rather that they don't have christian prayers before government meetings and Id rather there wasn't the ten commandments on state property and so on. But it doesn't make a top 100 list of social issues for me.

Right. So when it's impossible to have a slippery slope, some interest is completely removed from the conversation. The fact that a slippery slope is possible means that competing interests are still a part of the conversation. If things slide all the way down the slope, one side that was at the table is no longer at the table.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Can you point to the interest that has been completely removed from the conversation on this issue? It looks to me like the court is aiming to strike a balance - imperfect though it may be - between the competing ideals of a separation of church and state and a state democratically formed by a a church going people. Neither side has been allowed to slide down to the extreme (no utterance of religion by the state or state imposed religion), but that doesn't mean either side has been removed completely from the conversation.

If one wants to keep the slippery slope analogy - and I'm not sure its being useful here - it seems that the constitution sort of puts fences to keep out the extremes one may slip to on various sides of the hill, while letting precisely where one sets the balance point (somewhere near the top of hill, not on one of the extreme bottom sides) be up to the times.

The problem is that such tolerance and appreciation is a rarity in real life. Probably more so in places that feel that a public demonstration of faith at a secular government meeting is important enough to bother with.

The problem (although I don't think it has constitutional grounding) that makes this a cause for alarm is that being allowed to publically demonstrate that you are not a member of the dominant/majority group is not exactly a welcome activity to most people. The assumption of tolerance and appreciation for those outside the majority group overreaches the maturity level of those who would make a secular government meeting into a prayer-fest.

Of course, that being said, it isn't a big deal. It is upstate NY. Not really a part of the United States. Also, it should be noted that the town council did offer that "members of all faiths, and atheists" were welcome to give the opening prayer. Road trip!!! Just in case you need credentials to be considered for "chaplin of the month": http://www.themonastery.org/ordination

I don't think that the courts have shut anyone out of the issue.

You made a comment that slippery slopes can occur. I'm saying that they *must* occur if there's a careful balance being maintained.

Slippery slope means, in philosophy, that if we turn slightly to the left we end up inevitably in a ditch 300 hundred miles to the left.

It doesn't mean that some subjects are slippery or difficult.

I'm aware of that. Did you just recently discover this fact?

I'll admit that my last description was not as clear as previous ones, but in context of my claims about possibility (more precisely, impossibility), this adds nothing useful to the conversation, as is true of many of your observations.

This is what happens when 6 of 9 judges are catholic.

Such a waste of time, and correspondingly, taxpayer money - neither of which would be wasted if anyone that wants to pray before government business starts did so, you know, before government business starts! Its so frustrating that invocations even appear on state meeting agendas, as item number 1 no less.

so why was it a 5-4 decision? Also, similar types of decisions have been reached when there were different religious compositions on the bench.

LOL selective outrage on government inefficiency.

Sotomayor is not a true Catholic. I guess that makes her Jewish.

I WAS trying to be funny.

You're quite the comedian.