The Americans United statement on Friday's ruling said, "While treating nontheists like second-class citizens may have been part of our nation’s history, it’s a shameful practice, hardly something we ought to uphold today."

The decision and others like it "preference believers in god while sending a message of exclusion and even scorn to nontheists," the organization said. "That type of unequal treatment is exactly what the separation of church and state is intended to prevent."

The lawsuit in Pennsylvania had also challenged House of Representatives directions, in signs and verbal directions, to "please rise" during the invocation.

But the appeals court ruling said that although a House security guard pressured two people to stand in 2012, that was a "one-off incident." The court said current policy does not force anyone to stand during the prayer, and the invitation to rise is "not coercive."

I don't generally refer to myself as "atheist." Why invite hostility? I do describe myself (if asked, like in the hospital) as "unaffiliated."

My son makes no bones about referring to himself as "atheist." I think I related here about how, when he was hospitalized in January for renal failure, one hospital chaplain kept bugging him, despite Son's repeated requests not to deal with the man.

The guy would say, "We don't have to talk about religion. I just want to visit." Son was already dealing with a life-changing crisis; the last thing he needed was hounding by a chaplain.

I called the hospital administrator, identified myself as Son's mother, briefly described what had been going on, and explained that Son had identified himself as atheist, and was definitely experiencing distress over the chaplain's refusal to stop "dropping by."

The administrator apologized, and the chaplain did not visit any more.

Don't mess with Mama Bears.

We are having that problem right now in Scottsdale... with another city council... they created that only invited clergy can give the opening prayer... the Satanic Temple is challenging them in court... Christians create more problems for themselves... these council meetings are supposed to be representing a diverse swath of the population.... putting their silly Christian bias above other belief systems is selfish and uncharitable.. seem to be basic Christian principles... nothing says hate quite like Christian love.

I am an atheist relative to so-called "Cristians", who support white supremacists more than anybody, despite God/Christ's commandment, to love your fellow man as yourself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 12:31AM by schrodingerscat.

why would an atheist WANT to be invited to give an opening prayer? By definition, an "invocation" is a prayer to a deity or supreme being. The invocation itself is a tradition that for centuries has not been controversial and in any case has no legal effect and no bearing on substantive legislation. For some people, the tradition has meaning. For atheists, it's a joke at best and an insult to reason. Being reasonable, I see no reason for self-proclaimed atheists to be invited to give prayers.... It would be somewhat like a local vegetarian/animal-rights activist complaining about discrimination because the guy handing out bbq rib samples at Wal-Mart doesn't offer samples to her.

I guess the could create an "Atheist Day" or something like that, and a random atheist could be selected to give "convocation remarks" instead of an invocation. But it seems like that would be a weird and pointless path to go down, being that it's not a long-standing tradition and, substantively, would not add anything meaningful to anyone in particular.

Other than not believing in any supreme being or invisible deities, atheists do not have a common creed or belief tradition, so to other atheists the fact that a random atheist gets the privilege of making remarks would not be particularly meaningful.

Perhaps some atheists wanted to recite a Shel Silverstein poem.

I think "Backward Bill" would be the obvious choice and the reading thereof could soon become a tradition in its own right.

I KNEW you were a fan of the classics!

how carrots could help my eyesight, I had a mishap that came close to preventing me from ever being able to fully appreciate the classics. Fortunately, the damage was only temporary. ;o)

I know a tree that might be able to help.

That's a great suggestion! The atheists can just recite a poem. I'm not sure what they would find wrong with that?

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why would an atheist WANT to be invited to give an
> opening prayer?

Attention seeking. A lot of them have been deprived of it in early life so they need it in later life.p

Oh. So THAT'S why religious people insist on praying everywhere. Good to know.

It seems like a lot of people think there is some general law against something called "discrimination." There is not.

When it comes to discrimination, there are only a very few protected categories: race, sex, etc. There are the federally protected categories, and some states add additional ones (e.g., in my state, political party is added to the list).

Literally every other basis upon which one might treat a person differently is fair game. And it has to be that way. Imagine a situation where you had no basis to treat anyone differently for any reason. You would not be able to deny someone a job for lacking the qualifications; you would not be able to deny rental housing to violent felons. Discrimination is not inherently evil; it just means recognizing a characteristic that makes someone different from others and behaving accordingly if called for.

Applied to atheism: no one can look at you and see that you are an atheist (as they can with race and sex). Unless a person is going around telling everyone at every opportunity that he is an atheist, no one will know. And the atheist who IS going around proudly proclaiming his non-belief is looking for attention and will be "discriminated" against simply for his lack of social skills. That is not a crime, and it's not unreasonable. In an employment situation, for example, a person's beliefs about God are completely irrelevant, but an aggressive, attention-seeking style of relating to others has the potential to cause problems in the workplace. A smart employer will not hire someone who behaves that way, end of story.

Well, the First Amendment establishes a range of protected categories--but who's counting?!

This is so outrageous.

So now, atheists are not allowed to pray. My God, what's next?

Denying them the right to attend the Church of their choice?
Denying them the right to publicly preach the love of God?
Denying them the right to baptize their children?
Denying them the right to hold the holy priesthood?
Denying them the right to take the holy sacrament?

No wonder they feel oppressed and discriminated against; and feel the need to unite to fight against such discriminatory offenses. (But remember, they don't have a worldview!)

I have a great idea! Why don't we give atheists all of the above rights and encourage them to participate accordingly. That way, religion will become saturated with atheists and become ineffective in shaping social policy; and atheists will stop annoying us with their ridiculous complaints.

Where are my MEDS?

Spot on, Henry. I have a feeling a large proportion of self-proclaimed atheists are nothing of the kind; they've just stumbled upon it as a good way to get attention. They need to grow up and/or get therapy, not whine about laws that have no practical impact on their lives.

I think a few posters are missing the point.

By having prayers the government is saying that those with religion are more important than those without. On top of that, the vast majority of these prayers are Christian, which tends to show that the government is advocating religion in general, and Christianity in particular. If you've read your constitution you would know that this is problematic at best.

For those who ask, why would an Atheist want to pray? One answer is because believers, christians in particular get to use that prayer time to talk directly to lawmakers. By saying that a certain group is not allowed the same time, the government is saying clearly that they are considered less important, their voices don't matter as much, and believers (again, Christians in particular) matter more.

Basically, religion doesn't belong in the government. Why is there a prayer at all? If you want to pray, do so in private (I believe Christ was also pretty clear on that) or in the church of your choice. Removing prayer costs nothing but solves several problems. And yet, people keep doing it.

I think a few posters are missing the point.

COMMENT: Not so!

By having prayers the government is saying that those with religion are more important than those without.

COMMENT: The prayer in this context is not intended as a statement against atheism. It is intended as showing a commitment to the role of God in public affairs. It makes perfect sense to exclude atheists in such prayers, and such exclusion is NOT an attack in atheists.

______________________________________________

On top of that, the vast majority of these prayers are Christian, which tends to show that the government is advocating religion in general, and Christianity in particular. If you've read your constitution you would know that this is problematic at best.

COMMENT: But that is an argument to get rid of the prayers altogether, it is NOT an argument for including atheists in prayers that they rightfully object to in the first place. Do atheists want prayer eliminated from government, or do they just want to participate. Which is it?

_________________________________________

For those who ask, why would an Atheist want to pray? One answer is because believers, christians in particular get to use that prayer time to talk directly to lawmakers.

COMMENT: Again, that is an argument to get rid of them, not to expand their fair use, so that everyone can have the same right to "pray" their beliefs to lawmakers. As a practical matter, I doubt such prayers are used to influence lawmakers. Religious believers rarely have trouble getting access to lawmakers in the political context. They do not need public prayers.
_________________________________________

By saying that a certain group is not allowed the same time, the government is saying clearly that they are considered less important, their voices don't matter as much, and believers (again, Christians in particular) matter more.

COMMENT: That strikes me as just atheist wining. There is no reason to assume that prayer in a governmental context is not just an extension of one's faith; and not intended as a weapon against non-believers. Again, it is a question of the appropriateness of the prayer, not who is allowed to participate in it.
______________________________________

Basically, religion doesn't belong in the government. Why is there a prayer at all? If you want to pray, do so in private (I believe Christ was also pretty clear on that) or in the church of your choice. Removing prayer costs nothing but solves several problems. And yet, people keep doing it.

COMMENT: Exactly. So, as atheists, why not just focus on that issue; and not distract from that issue by whining about not being allowed to participate in a ritual that has no business in government in the first place.

>"It makes perfect sense to exclude atheists in such prayers, and such exclusion is NOT an attack in atheists."

If the government gave atheists at each meeting a dollar, but didn't to theists, I guarantee that theists would be arguing that they were being attacked. In this case, believers get something, but non-believers don't and to make matters worse, non-believers in the meeting have to watch believers get preferential treatment. These municipalities are saying very clearly that believers have a more of a voice than non-believers. That is an attack on my right to be seen as equal in the eyes of the government...

Now, to your other point...


>"It is intended as showing a commitment to the role of God in public affairs."

This, above all, is arguing that the prayers should be removed. This shows, very clearly, that the prayers are not constitutional and should be discontinued.

So, to your point, "So, as atheists, why not just focus on that issue" Many do, If you do a quick look at the history of this topic you'll find that atheists and groups that support the separation of church and state do fight to remove the prayers, frequently and repeatedly.

The problem is that the Courts, in the past, have ruled that the prayers can continue as long as they don't show preferential treatment to one organization or another (ha!), including non-believers (until this case). So, up to now, in order to ensure that even non-believers voices are heard, within the rules set by the precedence of these cases, Atheists have fought to at least have the same rights as their believing neighbors in these communities. And then, when they are turned away (as frequently happens) they go to court again to highlight that the municipality is not granting equal treatment, and that really, the praying should stop altogether.

That's why this case is worrying, it goes against even the slim appearance of equality and once again highlights that non-believers are not treated equal.

COMMENT: Any argument that governmental prayers are discriminatory, unfair, or otherwise inappropriate is perfectly fine with me. But an atheist being turned away from participating in a prayer ritual should not be part of the argument. That is what they should have expected, because atheists do not pray, and the ritual first and foremost is about prayer. The SC did not contemplate that "fairness" or "equality" in the context of prayer should include atheists. It would make no sense to make such an assumption. Now, I agree that it was short-sighted to set to one side the feelings of atheists, but such feelings have nothing to do with being excluded from the prayer ritual. It is about the very existence of the ritual.

The other thing I would point out is that once the SC ruled that government prayer was O.K. in this context, *that* decision itself was exclusionary to atheists on its face. My guess is that members of the Court underestimated the offense atheist might take in in such an exclusion, undoubtedly thinking, "Well, since atheists don't pray, they will have no expectation of being included, and thus won't care. Now, this was a very rational expectation on the part of the SC. What it did not anticipate was that atheists would use this exclusionary aspect of the ruling to rightfully point out that the ruling itself was wrong! But, again, this has nothing to do with atheists being denied the opportunity to participate in a prayer ritual.

Plus one to every thing you said, Finally Free! You nailed it.

Someone like Henry can do all the semantic gymnastics they please, but Separation of Church and State is just that. And the concept wasn't written with fingers crossed behind one's back.

Agree. One reason atheists would want equal time to get up and say whatever they want is so that theists recognize what it feels like to have to sit through time-wasting manipulative fluff that they think is not needed or appropriate.

Ideally, it would be nice to have it gone completely so there is no quibbling over time taken to appease everyone's views. The people who want to pray have their churches, minds, hearts and homes to pray in 24/7. That's not enough! They've got to find ways to impose their views on lawmakers and the public.

If atheists want to be heard instead of herded by Christians in the public, they need to insist on equal time. It would be nice if they didn't need to.

Agree. One reason atheists would want equal time to get up and say whatever they want is so that theists recognize what it feels like to have to sit through time-wasting manipulative fluff that they think is not needed or appropriate.

COMMENT: Yeh, right. No doubt the atheist would have something to say in such a "prayer" that would help Christians understand how it feels to be an atheist, and they would then immediately apologize, abandon all their government prayers, and have a renewed respect for atheism. Do you really think such participation would advance the atheist cause, as opposed to creating more bitterness and resentment toward atheists?
________________________________________

Ideally, it would be nice to have it gone completely so there is no quibbling over time taken to appease everyone's views. The people who want to pray have their churches, minds, hearts and homes to pray in 24/7. That's not enough! They've got to find ways to impose their views on lawmakers and the public.

COMMENT: Having it completely gone is the only answer! Otherwise, by demanding participation the atheist is validating the ritual, which is logically inconsistent with insisting that it is entirely inappropriate. Why is that so hard to see?

________________________________________

If atheists want to be heard instead of herded by Christians in the public, they need to insist on equal time. It would be nice if they didn't need to.

COMMENT: By insisting on "equal (prayer) time" the atheist presents atheism as an alternative religion and ideology, which is not how it's advertised. Such a demand is anathema to everything atheism is supposed to stand for. Not only that, it is demanding to participate in a ritual that atheism is foundationally and rightfully against.

And, what happens if the crusading atheist finally gets this equal time, and finds out it only makes things worse by creating more animosity and exclusion in areas where it really matters? Do the prophets of atheism (whoever they are) then say, 'Equal time is not enough, we want all government prayer eliminated." What does the atheist then say when the response is, "You got what you wanted; you have equal time, now sit down and shut up!"

Ah yes; there goes Henry again with that nasty "L" word; that relentless, annoying and unforgiving task master that has the nerve to question our cherished atheistic rhetoric.

"Semantic gymnast," "Wordsmith," "Sophist," most any insult will do. Oh, and silence also works quite well for many. And, if you are really stressed about the "L" word, you can avoid reading Henry altogether. But then you might miss out on those rare occasions when by accident, some twist of fate, or just pure luck, Henry gets it right. Logic --- so hard.

Why must Henry refer to himself in the third person...

And your "logic" is flawed in this case, or is at least based on a lack of information. Your entire post seems to be making the argument that atheists shouldn't try to be included in municipal prayers but should only fight to have them removed, as if people can only do one thing, or haven't already tried that.

Your entire post seems to be making the argument that atheists shouldn't try to be included in municipal prayers but should only fight to have them removed, as if people can only do one thing, or haven't already tried that.

COMMENT: That is exactly what I am saying. You cannot LOGICALLY claim that a government ritual (prayer) is inappropriate per se, while demanding to participate in that ritual. Those are inconsistent positions.

Now, I suppose it is possible to take a position, like: "We don't believe that government prayers are legitimate, but if you are going to have them, we want equal time." But the problem with that is in answering the question, "What is it that you want equal time to do?" Pray? But, you don't believe in God, so that doesn't make sense. Do you want equal time to just given some sort of atheistic message? But, that is not what the ritual is about; Should every group in the community get equal time to just leave a message about their beliefs? It makes no sense, zero. The ritual at issue is prayer; and prayer is about God; and atheists do not believe in God; therefore they cannot pray; and thus, atheism has no place in any context of prayer, including government. The only legitimate claim for equal time in the context of "prayer" is by some church or religion that believes in God in some sense. That disqualifies atheism. What could be simpler? If atheism has a problem with that logic, they need to invent a God to pray to. That is not so far-fetched, when you think about it; since they already have prophets.

And by the way, logic is NOT about what people do. It is about what people say and believe. An atheist can demand whatever she wants, and lobby for those demands. But if those demands are based upon established beliefs, principles, propositions and statements; like "We don't believe in prayer, but we want equal time to pray," logic rears its ugly head.

One of the definitions of prayer is "an earnest request or wish" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prayer definition 1b). There is nothing, especially legally that states that a prayer must be to a god or some higher power.

So, "prayer" doesn't need to be to a "God" or even a "higher power". Are you trying to say that a non-believer can't make an earnest request or wish? Please, I look forward to hearing your semantic twisting about how only believers can do that.

Basically, you're agreeing with everything I state, but then narrow the focus of the word "prayer" so that it meets the needs of your "logic" to exclude atheists.

The prayers should be gone. I hope we can agree on that. Since they aren't and the courts have provided an out for municipalities continue them, they should have to play by the rules. This includes allowing even non-believers to express their ernest requests and wishes for the meeting. We want our equal time. Unless you really are arguing that non-believers do not deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

I suggest you google the many atheist and non-believer prayers that have been given over the years in municipal meetings. They are often better and more applicable to the meeting at hand than what I'd expect from a theist's prayer. They often wish for the participants to be civil, remember they are neighbors, and the hope that all will be treated equally.

So, there are plenty of reasons why an atheist would want to pray in these meetings. You just don't seem to like it.

(edited to include the link to the definition of prayer, I forgot that in the original post)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 06:35PM by Finally Free!.

"One of the definitions of prayer is "an earnest request or wish" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prayer definition 1b). There is nothing, especially legally that states that a prayer must be to a god or some higher power."

COMMENT: Is that the definition that is operative in the present case? Or is that the definition that you want to change to in order to salvage your argument that it is not inconsistent for atheists to pray? If you took a pole of atheists, and asked them, "Do you pray?" What percent do you think would respond, "Yes." My guess is that the vast majority would think the question made no sense as applied to an atheist.
_________________________________________________

So, "prayer" doesn't need to be to a "God" or even a "higher power". Are you trying to say that a non-believer can't make an earnest request or wish? Please, I look forward to hearing your semantic twisting about how only believers can do that.

COMMENT: "Sematic twisting." Very good. I will add that to the list!
________________________________________________

"Basically, you're agreeing with everything I state, but then narrow the focus of the word "prayer" so that it meets the needs of your "logic" to exclude atheists."

COMMENT: See above. Everyone here knew exactly what "prayer" meant until you came forth with this new proposed escape hatch.
_________________________________________________

The prayers should be gone. I hope we can agree on that. Since they aren't and the courts have provided an out for municipalities continue them, they should have to play by the rules. This includes allowing even non-believers to express their ernest requests and wishes for the meeting. We want our equal time. Unless you really are arguing that non-believers do not deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

COMMENT: Yes, I agree that the prayers should be gone. But as long as "the rules" apply to "prayer" atheists are out by definition. If you allow them in, your change "the rules" one way or another. With respect to "prayer" there is no such thing as "equal time" for atheists. Again, you have to change the rules to make this about something else.
_____________________________________________

"I suggest you google the many atheist and non-believer prayers that have been given over the years in municipal meetings. They are often better and more applicable to the meeting at hand than what I'd expect from a theist's prayer. They often wish for the participants to be civil, remember they are neighbors, and the hope that all will be treated equally."

COMMENT: My congratulations to atheists who managed to succumb to the prayer mandate of believers. My question is, who did they pray to? The spirit of David Hume, in the name of Richard Dawkins?
_____________________________________________

"So, there are plenty of reasons why an atheist would want to pray in these meetings. You just don't seem to like it."

COMMENT: Yes. As an atheist I am uncomfortable with the logic of an atheist prayer. My bad! Meditation, fine; Moment of silence, fine; Two and a half minute talk, fine; But prayer? Not so much.

This all boils down to, "I don't like an established definition of prayer. I'm also going to ignore the fact that the law doesn't define what constitutes prayer. Doing so ruins my 'logical' argument so have to ignore these things"

I mean, you act as if I made the definition up as a "new proposed escape hatch". That's an actual definition of prayer, it's not even the second definition, it's part of the main one.

You are also acting as if "atheists" changed the rules. The Constitution first set the "rule" that you don't mix church and state. BELIEVERS said, screw that, and started praying in government meetings. People who actually understand why mixing church and state is a bad idea (not even just atheists, but believers too) said, "That's not a good idea". When the believers refused, they were taken to court, and the court said, "It's totally OK, as long as anyone can pray in the meetings."

The atheists didn't change the rules, the believers did. The non-believers are trying to work within those set rules to get things back to what the constitution says it should be.

But you know all this, you are simply ignoring all of that because it makes your "logic" look bad.

I don't have anything more to add.

Thank you for your willingness to engage in this debate, and your thoughtful comments.

> You
> cannot LOGICALLY claim that a government ritual
> (prayer) is inappropriate per se, while demanding
> to participate in that ritual.

Sure you can. In law it is entirely acceptable to proffer different proposals that are logically inconsistent but allow for the court to consider and adopt in alternative. "I didn't kill that man, but if I did it was an accident, and if it wasn't accidental it was self-defense" happens every day.

A plaintiff can indeed argue that public prayer is unconstitutional, but if it constitutional it should be expanded to permit a moment of silence, the recitation of a Shel Silverstein poem, or a dance around the Maypole.

> You
> cannot LOGICALLY claim that a government ritual
> (prayer) is inappropriate per se, while demanding
> to participate in that ritual.

Sure you can. In law it is entirely acceptable to proffer different proposals that are logically inconsistent but allow for the court to consider and adopt in alternative. "I didn't kill that man, but if I did it was an accident, and if it wasn't accidental it was self-defense" happens every day.

COMMENT: Yes. You can do it, but they are still LOGICALLY inconsistent positions, which is all that I said. In this case, an atheist can also take LOGICALLY inconsistent positions, and act on them, but most of us think that our beliefs, and related actions, should be consistent, absent a context where we are representing a client in a court of law.
__________________________________________

A plaintiff can indeed argue that public prayer is unconstitutional, but if it constitutional it should be expanded to permit a moment of silence, the recitation of a Shel Silverstein poem, or a dance around the Maypole.

COMMENT: But here you are advocating a change in policy that takes the issue out of the characterization of "prayer." A moment of silence is not a prayer. I am all for such an argument, because it does not involve an atheist demanding to be included in a prayer ritual. Arguing to eliminate the ritual, or to change its characterization so that it is not a prayer, but something else (a moment of silence) is entirely consistent. But that is not what the OP was about.

> COMMENT: Yes. You can do it, but they are still
> LOGICALLY inconsistent positions, which is all
> that I said. In this case, an atheist can also
> take LOGICALLY inconsistent positions, and act on
> them, but most of us think that our beliefs, and
> related actions, should be consistent, absent a
> context where we are representing a client in a
> court of law.

There is logic, and there is legal logic, and they are different. The latter is what matters here.




______________________

> COMMENT: But here you are advocating a change in
> policy that takes the issue out of the
> characterization of "prayer." A moment of silence
> is not a prayer. I am all for such an argument,
> because it does not involve an atheist demanding
> to be included in a prayer ritual. Arguing to
> eliminate the ritual, or to change its
> characterization so that it is not a prayer, but
> something else (a moment of silence) is entirely
> consistent. But that is not what the OP was about.

My point is that on the equities the plaintiff could do any of those things. In fact, they ultimately might.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 07:09PM by Lot's Wife.

"There is logic, and there is legal logic, and they are different. The latter is what matters here."

COMMENT: As an attorney of 30+ years I can tell you this statement is flat-out wrong.

Sometimes an attorney takes inconsistent positions; particularly early in a case when the facts are not all known. However, once the facts come in, the an attorney applies those facts and the applicable law to a specific desired conclusion in an attempt to convince a judge or jury that the desire position is the correct one. At that point, ordinary logic is applicable and inconsistency is unacceptable. Thus, there is no distinction between "legal logic" and the just plain ordinary logic as I have espoused here and in other threads.

You know full well that "argument in the alternative" is used all the time particularly in administrative law and constitutional law.

As for legal logic versus logic, let's consider some examples. Is it logical to say that a news reporter who releases confidential corporate information is guilty not depending on his mens rea but rather on the intentions of the original leaker? Is it logical that baseball is protected from anti-trust suits but no other sport is? Is it logical that tort law establishes strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities but that cars are exempted because they are common?

Of course legal logic differs from normal logic. It functions on the basis of precedent and legal processes that differ from those of normal logic.

First, logic is logic, whatever the context. It is about conclusions drawn from inferences made about stated or assumed facts, based upon common rules of inference. Regarding consistency, if two or more facts or conclusions cannot both be true, they are inconsistent. As such, holding that they are both true is to take an inconsistent position; again regardless of the context.

So, if an attorney represents an atheist and goes before the SC and says, "My client does not believe in prayer, and is being discriminated against by not being allowed to participate in a government prayer ritual," he would get a lot of very puzzled looks, I assure you.
______________________________________

"You know full well that "argument in the alternative" is used all the time particularly in administrative law and constitutional law.

COMMENT: Arguments in the alternative are based upon the assumption of alternative facts and the applicability of alternative laws. However, once the appropriate assumptions are in place, the argument proceeds--logically-- to determine the result given such assumptions. Logic is never given a free pass in the law. That is why attorneys get paid for making effective logical arguments. (Note also that establishing the facts and law appropriate to a case is also a matter of normal everyday logic.)
_________________________________________

As for legal logic versus logic, let's consider some examples. Is it logical to say that a news reporter who releases confidential corporate information is guilty not depending on his mens rea but rather on the intentions of the original leaker? Is it logical that baseball is protected from anti-trust suits but no other sport is? Is it logical that tort law establishes strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities but that cars are exempted because they are common?

COMMENT: What is logical under the law are facts as applied to the dictates of the law. That process is often laced with practical difficulties, but the logic is only controversial to those who do not understand how it works. If the law says that under a given set of facts, there is a violation of that law, then once the facts are established normal, everyday logic dictates that a violation has occurred. Now, you may disagree with the law, or dispute the facts, but again, once the law and the facts are in place logic kicks in to dictate the result. What attorneys argue about mostly are facts and the appropriate law, but rarely about the logical inferences involved once such facts and law are established. Now, with the SC, there may be arguments about what will happen if the law is established one way or another, but even these arguments are made with ordinary logic, not "legal logic."
__________________________________________

Of course legal logic differs from normal logic. It functions on the basis of precedent and legal processes that differ from those of normal logic.

COMMENT: You are just confused here. Precedent represents the law as established by cases, rather than statutes. Again, you can argue about what is the appropriate case law (precedent) given the facts, but the logic that is applicable once the facts and law are established is the same as in any other context. There is no such thing as a distinction between "legal logic" and "normal logic." If I went before a judge, and said, "Your Honor, today instead of using ordinary logic, I want you to consider "legal logic," he would have no idea what I was talking about, and what think I was nuts.

I am not confused at all. I said explicitly that legal processes assume the importance of precedent, of hewing to precedent, and of reasoning according to set rules. But that system of precedent and those rules of process do not stand up to normal logic.

What you have done in this post is to make my point for me. You explain the reasons why law channels logic in directions that make sense given the presumptions. In other words, you have explained why legal logic leads to conclusions that logic unbound by those presumptions would not.

The same is true of the parable of the witch and the duck in The Holy Grail. Given the presumptions of the legal system, the witch was guilty. That outcome makes no sense to those who start with either no presumptions at all or with the presumptions of another legal system.

You know that, surely: the way in which the Napoleonic Code, an equally valid legal system, frequently results in outcomes different from those dictated by common law. The role of logic in law is tightly constrained by a system of principles and precedents that in some cases are not logical per se.

Good Morning, LW!

"I am not confused at all. I said explicitly that legal processes assume the importance of precedent, of hewing to precedent, and of reasoning according to set rules. But that system of precedent and those rules of process do not stand up to normal logic."

COMMENT: The notion of "reasoning according to set rules" is the essence of logic. And regardless of one's foundational assumptions and commitments, these same rules apply to all; they are deeply embedded in human psychology. If that were not true, we would not be able to apply "reason" or "rationality" to anything, much less have the kind of debate we are having here.
_____________________________________________

"What you have done in this post is to make my point for me. You explain the reasons why law channels logic in directions that make sense given the presumptions. In other words, you have explained why legal logic leads to conclusions that logic unbound by those presumptions would not."

COMMENT: Law does NOT channel logic. That is your mistake. Quite the contrary, logic channels facts, established or assumed, into conclusions. Again, there is no such thing as "legal logic" that somehow channels facts to conclusions in a manner different from ordinary logic. If you change your assumptions, legal or otherwise, then logic will take you in a different direction. But the logic (reasoning according to set rules) does not change.

_____________________________________

The same is true of the parable of the witch and the duck in The Holy Grail. Given the presumptions of the legal system, the witch was guilty. That outcome makes no sense to those who start with either no presumptions at all or with the presumptions of another legal system.

COMMENT: Sorry I don't follow this. There are always starting presumptions, or assumed facts. Otherwise logical inquiry would not get off the ground. Alternative legal systems start with different foundational principles, laws and etc. all of which are based upon assumed facts and principles that the founders of such systems deemed appropriate. But then when all such principles and facts are in place, the same human logic applies to all such systems to lead them to their various conclusions. The different systems do NOT represent a different logic; they represent different foundational principles and starting assumptions as instantiated in their statutory legal scheme.

__________________________________________

You know that, surely: the way in which the Napoleonic Code, an equally valid legal system, frequently results in outcomes different from those dictated by common law. The role of logic in law is tightly constrained by a system of principles and precedents that in some cases are not logical per se.

COMMENT: This is not correct. The role of logic is NOT constrained in any legal system. The legal system *is* constrained by its foundational principles and laws, of course. I know of no legal system that attempts to alter, change, or modify the basic principles of human reasoning. If it did, then the whole system would fall apart because there would be no basis from which to apply the law and obtain the conclusions that the law dictates in particular cases; and that maintain the social structure which the system is supposed to uphold.

I find this unpersuasive.

You claim law is logical. I state that it is a form of logic but in many ways is based on specific propositions, many of which are arbitrary. You counter that the logic exercised within a framework, which I accept. But that is not the end of the matter. Logic should be applied to the initial premises as well as employed on the basis of those premises.

Trial by ordeal: you can apply logic to how people react under torture, but that does not make the system logical. The Holy Grail: you can apply false science logically, but that does not make the system logical. Defectors from Mormonism: they leave because they want to sin, are offended, etc., and then logic pushes you to one of the few permitted answers. That is logic applied within a system, a system that produces false results.

The point is that logic is logic; there are not multiple versions ("informal logic" that is, "formal logic" is different). Some people get it wrong. Either their foundational facts and assumptions are suspect, or their inferences are invalid. Maybe they engage in logical fallacies. Of course, there is a sense in which an argument is deemed "illogical" not because of bad inferences, but solely because of false premises. (Unsoundness) And that too is subject to logical analysis. But, again, we are not talking about a different logic; i.e. a different set of rules of reasoning. In that sense, logic itself is the very vehicle that challenges poor reasoning. What else could it be? That is why I call logic the unforgiving taskmaster. It is always there to challenge our beliefs, in one way or another. And we are not allowed to set it aside, or substitute it for some different rules of our own choosing.

As always, thanks for the exchange. I appreciate very much your thoughtful comments.

What a load of crap. Can't say I'm surprised considering wacked things are these day.

Discriminating against people based upon their religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs, was against the law at one point.

I'm at a loss as to why legislatures cannot convene nor councils conduct meetings without starting with a prayer.

Even when I was a "believer" I thought that prayer in public was just a show of piety reflecting self-righteous arrogance with the mask of humility. I have always scoffed.

If the gawd-botherers wish to pray, let them do it before the event, an not hold non-superstitious citizens hostage to the dog and pony show of peity to gain admission to a secular legal endeavor?

I agree with some religious folks here that "Athiest prayer" is just fundamentally stupid. Athiests don't listen to the prayers, and the gawd botherers don't listen to the thoughts or poems. Each is too busy being annoyed that they are not being pandered to.

Just goes to show how far we need to evolve as a species.

HH =)