This surprised me. In a good way.
The Obama administration has sided with a small town’s fight to be able to open their town supervisors meeting with a prayer. Last year, a federal appeals court told them they couldn’t so the Obama administration, along with congressional Republicans, filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the town should be able to open their meeting with a prayer.
The LA Times reports:
The Obama administration and congressional Republicans have found something to agree on: Town councils should be allowed to open their meetings with a Christian prayer.
Lawyers for the administration and two groups of lawmakers from the House and Senate, nearly all Republicans, separately made that argument in briefs to the Supreme Court this week. The high court should relax the constitutional limits on religious invocations at government meetings, they argued.
The case could lead to a major change in the law on religion that would go well beyond prayers at council meetings.
Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that the town of Greece, N.Y., near Rochester, had crossed the line and violated the 1st Amendment’s ban on an “establishment of religion.” For years, the town supervisor had invited a local minister to deliver an opening prayer at the council’s monthly meeting. Members of the audience were encouraged to join in the prayers.
August 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm
This doesn't surprise me at all. After all, Obama is big on ripping up the Constitution, and this case saying Christian prayers before a Town Council meeting does violate the First Amendment.
August 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm
It doesn't violate the First Amendment. Aside from the fact the for the first five decades or so most states had established churches (the federal government was the only one forbidden from establishing one), if the Town Council is all Christians, or any non-Christians have no objections, then opening with a Christian prayer comes under free speech and free expression.
Newsflash, not establishing a religion does not mean establishing irreligion. If it did, the Constitution would be invalid, by pure Classical Liberal principles—whenever a form of the social contract would deny to people a right that they have in the state of nature, the social contract is void and the state of nature is restored. People have the right to their religion in the state of nature.
August 10, 2013 at 8:30 pm
I smell a rat, this is highly un characteristic of His Imperial Majesty, something is up
August 11, 2013 at 12:21 am
Dear Leader has not demonstrated love of truth, and thus he is irrelevant with regard to ideas. He has the same claim on a person as a parking-lot mugger — his wastage and his threats are real, but are not predicated on law or faith. One does not seek for his approval.
August 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Clearly, the Administration's support is an instantiation of Rule of Acquisition number 76: Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the h*** out of your enemies.