A good explanation of the problem with the Supreme Court's decision on prayer at public meetings.

Supreme Court upholds religious prayers in local government proceedings, 5-4 (Click here for the source)

Rss@dailykos.com (adam B)
Monday, May 05, 2014, 5:45 pm

This is why she's on the Court.
.
Today's Supreme Court decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway isn't about whether Congress or state legislatures can start their proceedings with prayer; all nine justices agree that they can.
.
It's not even about whether local municipalities can have prayers before meetings in which all sorts of quasi-legislative, executive and administrative actions are discussed; all nine justices agree on that, too.
.
No, this is about whether a small town with residents from many faiths can decide to only invite Christian leaders to lead sectarian prayers, for years, never bothering to invite leaders from other faiths until citizens start complaining, and hinting about lawsuits, when there are prayers like this at every town meeting:.
.

    The beauties of spring . . . are an expressive symbol of the new life of the risen Christ. The Holy Spirit was sent to the apostles at Pentecost so that they would be courageous witnesses of the Good News to different regions of the Mediterranean world and be­yond. The Holy Spirit continues to be the inspiration and the source of strength and virtue, which we all need in the world of today. And so . . . [w]e pray this evening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the Greece Town Board meets.

.
Today's 5-4 decision, which allows such prayers so long as they're not part of a pattern of coercive and one-sided activity, hits so many of my standard tropes of Supreme Court reporting that I might as well flag them for you in advance:
.
It's the five you expect, against the four you'd expect. Even among that five, the Chief Justice is insisting today's decision is not a big deal. But Justice Thomas would have gone further. Indeed, because it's a religion-based case, there's going to be a lot of opinions from the Justices. And, gosh, Justice Kagan can really write.

.
 Last point first, because I want to put this above the fold to highlight just how well she puts the reader in the place of a religious minority at one of these meetings:
.

    A person goes to court, to the polls, to a naturalization ceremony-and a government official or his hand-picked minister asks her, as the first order of official business, to stand and pray with others in a way conflicting with her own religious beliefs. Perhaps she feels sufficient pressure to go along-to rise, bow her head, and join in whatever others are saying: After all, she wants,very badly, what the judge or poll worker or immigration official has to offer. Or perhaps she is made of stronger mettle, and she opts not to participate in what she does not believe-indeed, what would, for her, be something like blasphemy. She then must make known her dissent from the common religious view, and place herself apart from other citizens, as well as from the officials responsible for the invocations. And so a civic function of some kind brings religious differences to the fore: That public proceeding becomes (whether intentionally or not) an instrument for dividing her from adherents to the community's majority religion, and for altering the very nature of her relationship with her government.

.
    That is not the country we are, because that is not what our Constitution permits. Here, when a citizen stands before her government, whether to perform a service or request a benefit, her religious beliefs do not enter into the picture. See Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (Oct. 31, 1785), in 5 The Founders' Constitution 85 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987) ("[O]pinion[s] in matters of religion . . . shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect [our] civil capacities"). ...
.
    Let's say that a Muslim citizen of Greece goes before the Board to share her views on policy or request some permit. Maybe she wants the Board to put up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection; or maybe she needs a zoning variance to build an addition on her home. But just before she gets to say her piece, a minister deputized by the Town asks her to pray "in the name of God's only son Jesus Christ."  She must think-it is hardly paranoia, but only the truth-that Christian worship has become entwined with local governance. And now she faces a choice-to pray alongside the majority as one of that group or somehow to register her deeply felt difference. She is a strong person, but that is no easy call-especially given that the room is small and her every action (or inaction) will be noticed. She does not wish to be rude to her neighbors, nor does she wish to aggravate the Board members whom she will soon be trying to persuade. And yet she does not want to acknowledge Christ's divinity, any more than many of her neighbors would want to deny that tenet. So assume she declines to participate with the others in the first act of the meeting-or even, as the majority proposes, that she stands up and leaves the room altogether. At the least, she becomes a different kind of citizen, one who will not join in the religious practice that the Town Board has chosen as reflecting its own and the community's most cherished beliefs. And she thus stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives.