Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

progree

(12,948 posts)

19. Yup. Unfortunately there's no requirement that other religions be accomodated

Reply to jtuck004 (Reply #18)

Wed May 7, 2014, 04:40 PM

May 2014

http://news.yahoo.com/god-save-honorable-court-094500378--politics.html

... the five justices in the majority, held that 15 years of almost exclusively sectarian Christian prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause because the town board graciously invited representatives from all of the town’s congregations. That all of those congregations just happen to be either Catholic or Protestant, the majority said, is not the board’s responsibility: “So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to...promote ‘a diversity of views.’”

In other words, the 5 justices upheld religious majority rule.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Think the SCOTUS opening prayer ruling is no big deal? [View all] jeff47 May 2014 OP

Slavery had a long standing tradition too ... JoePhilly May 2014 #1

You're assuming this SCOTUS gives a damn about precedent. jeff47 May 2014 #4

Actually, I haven't read the dercision, but I did some research on this at one point, and JDPriestly May 2014 #10

Unfortunately I think you are right about the precedent progree May 2014 #16

I note with hope that during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, Congress selected a couple JDPriestly May 2014 #24

Maybe. I'm an atheist -- not a single congressperson (either senator or rep) is agnostic or atheist progree May 2014 #25

"...this SCOTUS doesn't give a damn about precedent..." Spitfire of ATJ May 2014 #11

Oh, yeah ... GeorgeGist May 2014 #2

if it was a big enough deal for the supreme court to rule on it, it's a big deal spanone May 2014 #3

^This.^ blkmusclmachine May 2014 #13

Forward to the 19th century. progressoid May 2014 #5

^And this.^ blkmusclmachine May 2014 #14

What amendment addresses marriage in the US Constitution? sinkingfeeling May 2014 #6

The 14th. JDPriestly May 2014 #9

Here's their tie-in to marriage, from the document citied in the OP: progree May 2014 #15

Well then the next time someone starts a prayer at a public meeting that I attend RoccoR5955 May 2014 #7

That's a great idea! I've been wanting to do this in the town I live in. I can get all of my friends DesertDiamond May 2014 #20

Well well. Excuse me, but I'm going to give a Christian prayer progree May 2014 #22

Rancho Cordova, CA (a suburb of Sacramento) had a Pastafarian invocation before a council meeting. LeftyMom May 2014 #27

One delivered a prayer asking for guidance from whatever higher power one believes in or other than progree May 2014 #28

It's a big fucking deal DavidDvorkin May 2014 #8

+1,000. And, wait until SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby. YIKES blkmusclmachine May 2014 #12

Never thought it was no big deal passiveporcupine May 2014 #17

SCOTUSblog mini-symposium on this jtuck004 May 2014 #18

Yup. Unfortunately there's no requirement that other religions be accomodated progree May 2014 #19

I think there are several things that could be challenged there. jtuck004 May 2014 #23

My dad was right about the Dominionists. They are determined to take over this country and run us. DesertDiamond May 2014 #21

YES YES YES they are.....read up on the beliefs of the 7 Mountain groups... VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #26