Dan Courtney's Secular Invocation Before the Town Board of Greece, NY - YouTube

Atheist Dan Courtney delivers a historic secular invocation before a meeting of the Town Board of Greece, NY on July 15, 2014. Greece is the town at the center of the Greece v. Galloway Supreme Court case, which cleared the way for sectarian prayers at government meetings.

According to the Democrat & Chronicle:

Quoting philosopher Immanuel Kant and drawing on the words of the Declaration of Independence, Dan Courtney made history on Tuesday speaking before the Greece Town Board.

Courtney, past president of the Free Thinkers of Upstate New York, delivered the first atheist invocation at a town board meeting, following the May U.S. Supreme Court decision that said Greece's practice of allowing sectarian prayer was permissible, as long as the town didn't discriminate.

Noting the Declaration's assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Courtney said this central premise of the Founding Fathers "is today, more than ever, under assault. This central pillar of free society; this notion that is deeply heretical to authoritarian culture, proclaims that it is from the people that moral authority is derived."

[,,,]
Outside, on the lawn of the Town Hall, free thinkers, atheists, non-religious, supportive religious and others gathered to decry the Supreme Court decision, and pledge that they will hold the court and governments to the decision's edict against discrimination.

"There is prejudice based on the misguided belief that belief in God is the only path to morality," said Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. "And we need to overcome that prejudice."

Dan Courtney's Secular Invocation Before the Town Board of Greece, NY - YouTube

Atheists to city of Rowlett: Let us give council invocations, too | Dallas Morning News

"As long as I’m mayor, we are going to pray.”
--
A Supreme Court decision in May about invocations at City Council meetings left the city of Rowlett claiming victory, but Metroplex Atheists members say they instead are to benefit.

The organization, backed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, is giving the city 10 business days to respond to a request to add two of its Rowlett members to the list of those who can give the invocation at council meetings.

“We would still rather see no invocation at all in government meetings, but if they’re going to have them, we want to push for equal time,” said Randy Word, president of the area group, which has been battling the city for four years.

[,,,]
In light of the same ruling, the national Freedom From Religion Foundation asked the city in a June 24 letter to revisit its policy for selecting who gives the invocation.

“Specifically, we ask that you ensure that nonbelievers are given equal opportunity to deliver invocations at council meetings,” wrote Sam Grover, attorney for the foundation.

Metroplex Atheists Rowlett established as a subsidiary to the area group 18 months ago and took a post office box address within the city. It meets in Rowlett and names two Rowlett residents as its directors. One is registered with the American Humanist Association to give secular invocations.

City leaders say it’s another shift in the group’s direction over the years, driven by a desire for publicity.

Word said Metroplex Atheists is in Rowlett because it has members living there, one of whom in 2010 made the original request for the council invocations to cease. Word describes Metroplex Atheists as a community and points to the group’s recent adopt-a-street commitment in Rowlett as community involvement.

City Attorney David Berman said Tuesday that Rowlett’s position was unchanged and that the city probably wouldn’t respond to the letter. Mayor Todd Gottel also reaffirmed his stance.

Atheists to city of Rowlett: Let us give council invocations, too | Dallas Morning News

Atheist to Deliver Invocation at Greece, NY Town Meeting July 15 | Center for Inquiry

Atheist Dan Courtney will deliver an invocation at the July 15 board meeting of the Town of Greece, New York, the municipality involved in the recent case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of sectarian prayer at government meetings. The president of the Center for Inquiry, a secular advocacy group based in Western New York, will speak at a press conference immediately following the meeting.

CFI will be represented at the press conference by Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), an attorney, and author of the upcoming book The Necessity of Secularism. Last year CFI – an internationally renowned organization whose headquarters is in Amherst, NY – submitted an amicus brief to the Court in Greece v. Galloway urging them to rule against sectarian prayer at government meetings, on the grounds that they are exclusionary and discriminatory to those who do not share the majority faith.

Atheist to Deliver Invocation at Greece, NY Town Meeting July 15 | Center for Inquiry

So Ted "the Cuban-Canadian Senator from Texas" Cruz is a bit confused

,,, as usual.  Despite his claim that, ",,,Senate Democrats are going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment," we have this occurring in Virginia: "Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway,,, which cleared the way for sectarian prayer at public meetings, Roanoke County Supervisor Al Bedrosian announced his intention to institute a policy that would bar any non-Christian invocations at county meetings."

So which is it Mr. Crazy Pants, are you and your friends in the Reich attempting to abolish First Amendment protections by way of what is occurring in Virginia? Or are you delusional and hyperbolic by taking a piece of Democrat led legislation and twisting it through your lens of a theocratic Oligarchy to remove First Amendment protections in your own right?

First, S. J. Res. 19 and what "I'm so oppressed" Cruz had to say.

“I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped. "Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority to regulate political speech. Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done."

Cruz was referring to a proposed constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would reverse recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating campaign finance limits, including Citizens United and McCutcheon. Schumer said the Senate would vote this year on the constitutional amendment, which seeks to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Citizens United decision in an election year.

The text of the amendment gives Congress the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections." Cruz said that 41 Democrats signed on to what he characterized as an all-out effort to "repeal the First Amendment."

"It explicitly says, 'nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.' So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn't say the same thing about the freedom of speech, it doesn't say the same thing about religious liberty," he said. "What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you're saying things that government finds inconvenient."

Cruz does get one thing right, this Resolution is in response to Citizens United/McCutcheon and will, if enacted, regulate the amount corporations and wealthy individuals can spend [and raise] to support and oppose candidates. What Cruz ignores, as noted by Chuck Schumer, is the balance SJ 19 is attempting to return to the political system.

SJ 19 speaks of:  (a) political equality for all, and protecting the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes [at both the State and Federal level]; (b) the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal [and State] elections: and (c) placing limits on contributions to candidates for nomination for election,,,the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.  It does not speak about limiting free speech, "unless a pastor also runs a super PAC, it would not affect his life all that much, much less “muzzle” him."

You see, in the mind of Ted Cruz it okay for corporations and billionaires to buy elections under Citizens United as a means to usher in an oligarchy. Yet limiting this activity, which will effectively destroy our democracy, is somehow violates the First Amendment rights of the ministers in attendance, "muzzle each and every one of you."  In the words of Mark Udall (D-N.M.), the amendment sponsor, "[e]lections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas."

So how exactly does the above relate to the situation in Virginia?  Well they are both variants of First Amendment issues (freedom of religion, religious expression or establishment of religion).  Cruz is emphatically stating the Dems are trying to repeal (which they are not); while little, big-man in Virginia is demonstrating Christian entitlement. (Something if one reads Kagan's dissent in Greece v. Galloway she warned against; the majority religion pushing aside all minority beliefs.)

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.

[,,,]
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

[,,,]
If a non-Christian wished to pray during a meeting under his idea for the prayer policy, Bedrosian said, he or she would be able to do so during the allotted time for citizen comment.

“I think America, pretty much from founding fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”

And,

Reached Friday for comment, Bedrosian stuck with his original comments. He was asked again how he would respond to a non-Christian’s request to offer the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meetings.

“I would say no,” he said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”

So I sit here shaking my head at these conflicting views of the First Amendment issues as represented by members of the right side of the aisle.  Both are Republicans but yet they can not agree on what is occurring in the grand scheme of things.  So I ponder,,,

After Supreme Court prayer decision, Satanist offers his own prayer - Los Angeles Times

I'm not quite sure yet whether I agree 100% with Greaves on some points he has chosen to publicize: I do quietly support him. But I feel that has to do with the fact that I am not an "in-your-face" type person. I'm not a bold person. That aside, I absolutely love his "prayer" (maybe he could have left off the "Hail Satan" part, but that's just me.)
__
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a town board in upstate New York, and by extension, governmental bodies everywhere, to begin official meetings with a Christian prayer.

"Ceremonial prayer," the court said, is not unconstitutional. It is merely the continuation of a long American tradition, practiced by Congress and dozens of state legislatures, and is intended to "invoke divine guidance" and place governmental institutions in a "solemn and deliberative frame of mind."

[,,,]
Or, for heaven's sakes, Satanists.

After all, they, too, consider themselves a religion. And who is to say otherwise?

Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves was only too happy to compose a prayer.

[,,,]
Greaves was game. Here is what he sent:
_
"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan."
_
What the heck. That's a prayer that could work for a legislative body anywhere--in the Massachusetts town of Heaven Heights, the Michigan town of Hell, or maybe even in Greece.

After Supreme Court prayer decision, Satanist offers his own prayer - Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

I am still digesting the ruling of the court and the numerous outside opinions (200+ articles and counting). I "understand" the ruling - the role of "ceremonial prayer - I do not agree with it. All "prayer" needs to be eliminated from public governmental functions. But it opens another issue within itself, that of public monuments on governmental properties, are they the "same" issue or different?

That being said,,,

The article didn't quite answer the question posed, but raised some interesting concerns: "In trying both to forbid official censorship and to maintain the secular ideal of public neutrality, the court has invited a competitive free-for-all, enabling groups to offer tit-for-tat expressions of deeply held but deeply opposed beliefs, some analysts say."

__

Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that sectarian content is permissible within America’s longstanding tradition of public invocations and official prayer, other Americans, including Satanists and secular humanists, are hoping to use the ruling to make a case for their own public prayers at the start of official government gatherings.
Related Stories

One outcome of Monday’s ruling is to raise the stakes in the nation’s ongoing culture war over the place of religion in modern public life, opening a proverbial Pandora’s box when it comes to the proper theological parameters for official religious expression, many legal observers say.

[,,,]
But scholars note that Monday’s ruling reveals an ongoing tension between the secular ideals of tolerance and neutrality in the public sphere and the hard-edged religious beliefs of certain faiths. Instead of fostering tolerance, they say, it may have added fuel to the flames of a culture war that continues to rage.

“Particularly in light of the still-hazy standards for judging the appropriateness of prayer at legislative sessions, as well as the Supreme Court's insistence that the prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, it seems quite likely that secularists, members of fringe religious groups, and perhaps even Satanists will begin clamoring for the microphone,” e-mails B. Jessie Hill, professor and dean at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

Indeed, after Monday’s ruling, the American Humanist Association announced it would launch a program to provide resources for local secularists seeking to join the legislative prayer practice in their communities. (Glen Beck's The Blaze had this to say concerning the AHA program.)

[,,,]
Still, Monday’s decision contains a subtle but significant contradiction, legal scholars say. On one hand, the Supreme Court clearly stated that government officials may not censor the content of official religious expressions of a civic community. (If I remember my case law this is referring to the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers ruling A case that ruled that ceremonial prayer to open the legislative sessions was constitutional. But the trouble with prayer, since none can deem beforehand what prayer is acceptable, you have no control over what the prayer giver will say.)

“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian.”

On the other hand, just after saying the government could not censor the conscience of a prayer-giver, Kennedy seemed to go on to do just that, offering specific theological parameters for official government-permitted prayers, many legal observers note. He warned that certain kinds of invocations, especially those that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” might run afoul of the Constitution.
__
It is interesting to note the contrasting opinions between David Niose, legal director at the American Humanist Association and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. They are almost reversed of what you would think them to be.

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

Updated::Hindu Prayer Interrupted In Senate By Christians - YouTube

I believe this is what Gandhi was referring to when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." SCOTUS didn't get it and neither does the Reich. It is blatantly obvious by this display that "prayer" should NOT be allowed at government functions, they meant Christian only, as defined by them. I wonder if a Catholic priest had got up and said the Hail Mary, what would the evangelicals had done? [This incident occurred in 2012 but highlights what Greece v. Galloway is all about.]

This is the diversity that Kagan was referring to in her dissent:

As Kagan wrote in her dissent, "the Town of Greece should lose this case" because "the invocations given -- directly to those citizens -- were predominantly sectarian in content." The dissent went on to explain that the prayers before the town meetings in Greece went beyond what the majority opinion called "a benign acknowledgment of religion's role in society." In the dissent's view, it was not the prayer per se that crossed the constitutional line, but the fact that the prayers "repeatedly invoked a single religion's beliefs." Prayers included a discussion of "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross" and "the plan of redemption that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ."

Hindu Prayer Interrupted In Senate By Christians - YouTube

Updated 12:38 AM 5/8/2014:: I did a bit more digging yesterday AM concerning this video. Initially I came up with the date of 2012 based on when it was uploaded but that didn't sound right after going through my archive. I think I may have found the proper dating Senate Prayer Led by Hindu Elicits Protest::Associated Press, Friday, July 13, 2007. Although a bit older than I thought, it still highlights the turmoil surrounding prayer at government "functions."

BREAKING::Americans United Disappointed That U.S. Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Sectarian Prayer Before Town Board Meetings | Americans United

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today strongly condemned a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the town of Greece, N.Y.’s policy of opening government meetings with Christian prayers.

In a 5-4 decision today, the high court said that Marsh v. Chambers, a 1983 ruling that permits state legislatures to pay for official chaplains and open sessions with prayers, authorizes the town’s practice.

“The Supreme Court just relegated millions of Americans --- both believers and nonbelievers --- to second-class citizenship,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, which sponsored the lawsuit. “Government should not be in the business of forcing faith on anyone, and now all who attend meetings of their local boards could be subjected to the religion of the majority.”

Americans United Disappointed That U.S. Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Sectarian Prayer Before Town Board Meetings | Americans United

Arizona School Board Unanimously Votes to Bring Prayer Back to Public Meetings | Christian News Network

Notice how they say "invite clergy from all religions" and "pre-meeting." Then of course we get this, "Our Founding Fathers,,," Going to have to do some digging as the author also mentions the Town of Greece v. Galloway case which is slated to be heard by the SCOTUS in May. Difference there is the Galloway case is dealing with a municipal setting (town board meeting) whereas the current case deals with a school board meeting.

I'm not sure where supporters get the idea that “[p]rayer helps set the tone for the deliberations that are to follow,,,." I would think it would be very coercive, marginalizing and uncomfortable for those of other faiths.

A school board in Arizona has voted unanimously to reinstate prayers at public meetings after voting just two months ago to replace the invocations with a moment of silence.

The five-member Mesa school board agreed without dissent to invite clergy from all religions to participate in a new pre-meeting program, according to The Republic.

The vote, held on Tuesday, reversed a decision in November that replaced prayer with a moment of silence. Reports state that the board was initially fearful of losing a lawsuit if the prayers were challenged in court.

[,,,]
“Prayer helps set the tone for the deliberations that are to follow,” stated clerk Michelle Udall prior to the vote. “Our Founding Fathers clearly did not intend for prayer to be banished from public meetings. Those who do not wish to participate are always allowed to refrain.”


Arizona School Board Unanimously Votes to Bring Prayer Back to Public Meetings | Christian News Network

“We’ve Already Excluded the Atheists, Right?” | Center for Inquiry

CFI also argued, in agreement with the Second Circuit, that there is a significant difference between local governmental bodies and state legislatures. If you want your zoning petition approved, would you refuse to participate in the town council’s prayer? Clearly, at the local level, there is an element of coercion that is not present in Congress or state legislatures. Therefore, at a minimum, Marsh should be limited to its facts.

We did not expect the plaintiffs’ attorney, Douglas Laycock, to spend his time championing the rights of the nonreligious. After all, he is there to win a case. But it seems to me he did not have to go out of his way to throw atheists under the bus. The question about excluding atheists from consideration arose in the context of a discussion about whether any type of prayer practice would please people of all groups, whatever their religion or lack of religion. Laycock, knowing that he could probably not get a Court majority to eliminate the prayer practice entirely, decided to take the angle that you only have to please the majority of people. Only the majority of people have to be treated equally.

Oh, great, so the Establishment Clause was intended not to protect minority rights, but rather the sentiments of the majority. You know, all these years, I had that backward, Doug. Thank for straightening me out.

“We’ve Already Excluded the Atheists, Right?” | Center for Inquiry