Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-10-2002, 09:11 AM

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dme%2Dprayer10sep10" target="_blank">Prayer Ban for Public Meetings Upheld</a>

Quote:

The case arose after Irv Rubin, chairman of the Jewish Defense League, attended a Burbank City Council meeting In November 1999 that began with a Christian prayer led by David King, a Mormon bishop, who ended with "in the name of Jesus Christ."

In the 15-page opinion, written by Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, the court contended that "to demand neutrality when the interests of religion and government intersect is increasingly more important as our nation becomes more pluralistic."

The court also rejected Burbank's argument that the invocation is "private speech" and found "that any legislative prayer that proselytizes or advances one religious belief or faith or disparages another" is unconstitutional.

"By directing the prayer to 'Our Father in Heaven ... in the name of Jesus Christ,' the invocation conveyed the message that the Burbank City Council is a Christian body, and from this it could be inferred that the council was advancing a religious belief," Doi Todd wrote. Justices Michael G. Nott and Judith Ashmann-Gerst concurred.

The trial court's <a href="http://www.jdl.org/action/action/burbank_ruling.shtml" target="_blank">opinion</a> is on the <a href="http://www.jdl.org/" target="_blank">Jewish Defense League website</a>.

Ironically, Irv Rubin, who started the case, is in jail for attempting to firebomb a local mosque and the offices of Darrell Issa, a California representative of Lebanese descent.

Another story <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020910/pl_nm/rights_prayer_dc_2" target="_blank">from Reuters</a>:

Quote:

Attorney Roger Diamond, who represented Rubin and Gandara in the lawsuit, was jubilant, shouting "praise the Lord!" when reached by a Reuters reporter. He added that his clients were not "anti-religion" but were convinced that prayer belonged in churches, temples and mosques and not in government.

"This went overboard," he said. "This was a prayer in the name of Jesus. That's what crossed the line."

Diamond, who quoted Jesus' words from the Bible in his court papers, said his jailed client had not yet heard of the court victory but would be happy to have won.

"Jesus complained (in the Bible) about people praying in public when it's really meant to be a private activity," he said. "I believe, as Jesus said, that politicians do this because they are hypocrites and they want to create the impression that what they are doing is infallible."

Stephen Maturin · 09-10-2002, 09:42 AM

The court of appeals' opinion in Rubin v. City of Burbank is available for download in your choice of Word or PDF format at <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/" target="_blank">this page</a>. The analysis is top-notch.

Toto · 09-10-2002, 10:23 AM

A very good analysis of Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld legislative chaplains, which Newdow is trying to overturn.

But I was disappointed that the court did not consider the Council for Secular Humanism's position that it is impermissible to favor belief over non-belief. There is something oxymoronic about a "non-sectarian prayer." Sort of like healthy junk food, or a rational superstition.

beejay · 09-10-2002, 12:47 PM

Quote:

�Sectarian� is defined as relating to or characteristic of a sect. A �sect� is defined as an organized ecclesiastical body, or a religious denomination. The trial court�s characterization of the invocation as �sectarian� was merely a definitional determination that the invocation unconstitutionally communicated a preference for one religious faith (or sect) over another.

Above quote from the opinion.

I suppose, given Marsh, and the fact that lower courts can't overrule the Supreme Court, that the Rubin decision is about as much as we can hope for.

Prayers to God are OK; prayers mentioning Jesus are not.

Maybe Newdow can get the Supreme Court to reverse themselves...

4th Generation Atheist · 09-10-2002, 04:14 PM

Cheers for the JDL, at least in this case. Glad to see the religious right hasn't requisitioned their testicles yet.

Firebombing the mosque though....I'm glad the court didn't resort to using this against the case, and was able to decide the prayer one separately. Objectivity must get damned difficult at times.

Toto · 09-10-2002, 04:42 PM

Irv Rubin hasn't been convicted and his own circumstances are irrelevant to the case.

I thought there was an old thread on this peculiar case, but I can't find it. The JDL in LA is down to Irv Rubin, which gives him a platform to mouth off. The firebombing never got beyond the planning stage, and there was speculation that Rubin would be able to wiggle out of it with an entrapment defense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2002, 09:42 AM	#2
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	The court of appeals' opinion in Rubin v. City of Burbank is available for download in your choice of Word or PDF format at <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/" target="_blank">this page</a>. The analysis is top-notch.

09-10-2002, 10:23 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A very good analysis of Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld legislative chaplains, which Newdow is trying to overturn. But I was disappointed that the court did not consider the Council for Secular Humanism's position that it is impermissible to favor belief over non-belief. There is something oxymoronic about a "non-sectarian prayer." Sort of like healthy junk food, or a rational superstition.

09-10-2002, 04:14 PM	#5
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	Cheers for the JDL, at least in this case. Glad to see the religious right hasn't requisitioned their testicles yet. Firebombing the mosque though....I'm glad the court didn't resort to using this against the case, and was able to decide the prayer one separately. Objectivity must get damned difficult at times.

09-10-2002, 04:42 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Irv Rubin hasn't been convicted and his own circumstances are irrelevant to the case. I thought there was an old thread on this peculiar case, but I can't find it. The JDL in LA is down to Irv Rubin, which gives him a platform to mouth off. The firebombing never got beyond the planning stage, and there was speculation that Rubin would be able to wiggle out of it with an entrapment defense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.