Alderperson demonstrates better wisdom than SCOTUS.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court of the US ruled that it was okay to specifically use Christian prayers at the start of public meetings.  Relying on the notion that the original framers of the Constitution held Christian prayers at the start of Congress, they ruled that prayers at public meetings needn't be stripped of specific Christian references for more generic references to a god / higher power.

In its opinion they speculated:

"It is doubtful that consensus could be reached as to what qualifies as a generic or nonsectarian prayer. It would also be unwise to conclude that only those religious words acceptable to the majority are permissible, for the First Amendment is not a majority rule and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech."

We should all mock them.

After all, we have a word for this type of prayer: Nondenominational.  We've been living with agreed-upon, generic, nonsectarian prayers for the last 150 years.  We have churches built upon the very concept of nondenominational.  We have entire communities of Americans who describe themselves as agnostic who attend nondenominational churches.  We also have Unitarian Universalists, looking to give individuals the freedom to find their own spiritual path, non-specific to Christianity.  All this history in the US, and the conservatives of SCOTUS dare tell us otherwise?

And given how the conservative wing of the SCOTUS has deviated from past rulings (unsettling settled law) on a variety of subjects, specifically Citizens United v. FEC with regard to the First Amendment, it sure seems folly that they assert this notion that a majority rule hasn't sought to change its interpretations.  If this weren't the case, why did conservatives raise hackles when President Obama made his appointments to SCOTUS?

So I present this excerpt from a Chicago Tribune beat writer, who spoke to an elderperson from a small community, Diane Gutenkauf of Elmhurst:

"Once you begin introducing any particular religion then you have the burden of having to meet the needs of all religions," she said. "That's a bigger burden than most communities can bear." 

She said she thinks people should offer a silent prayer if they want. She doesn't like the idea offered that anyone who doesn't want to be present during a prayer at a city meeting to leave during it. 

"Why put that burden on people of having to leave?" she asked. "I don't think the justices fully understand the weight and burden of this decision."

 Here we have an elected person expressing the need for Separation of Church and State along the need for inclusion of all, contrasted against the conservative wing of SCOTUS looking to grant legitimacy to its view...by majority rule no less.

Who's the wiser?  I vote Gutenkauf.

But if you want to really tweak a conservative, remind them that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist and Benjamin Franklin was agnostic at best -- two signatories of the US Constitution.