In cases of religious opinion the Church holds jurisdiction over the State.

You might want to restate that. The Catholic Church most definitely does not have “Authority or control” over religious opinion in any part of this country.

The secular test is nonsense

I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s pretty well established.

it allows a group of religions to force its opinion on other religions.

How so? Are you implying that that happened in this case?

In cases of religious opinion the Church holds jurisdiction over the State. In this case the city has to prove their opinion does not interfere with or is not hostile to the free exercise of religion by Catholics. The noble cause test would apply on both sides.

The secular test is nonsense as it allows a group of religions to force its opinion on other religions.

The Noble Cause test is used by the Courts in some cases under different guises. It is mentioned in Thomas Locke’s “Second Treatise on Civil Government” which according to Thomas Jefferson’s papers is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Declaration and the U.S. Constitution. Locke definitely made a case that libertine behavior is not a noble cause. From the context of his writing and that of the U.S. Declaration I would conclude that violating the right of life, health of yourself or others in not acceptable behavior unless there is a cause such as self defense, pursuing justice, defending your own or others natural rights for unjust infringement, and some other reasons like that.

One case the Supreme Court used the noble cause test in is REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878) when they said it is legal to outlaw polygamy since polygamy is harmful to society in that it encourages a patriarchy. I question this ruling because I am unsure about the constitutionality of the Federal government overruling state law in areas where Congress was not given jurisdiction by the U.S. Constitution. (Tenth Amendment v. Fourteenth Amendment dispute)

What is inconsistent about the ruling? The setting is irrelevant.

You can not prove that the San Francisco lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect because it is an opinion held by a religious organizing.

Could you clarify that? I think you mistyped a couple things and I’m not sure of its meaning.

The church merely has to prove that the government is criticizing their doctrine without a noble cause.

From where did you derive this “noble cause” test and how does it differ from the court’s “primarily secular purpose” test?

You can not prove that the San Francisco lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect because it is an opinion held by a religious organizing. For the court to take sides in a religious argument is in fact a violation of the First Amendment. The same of course is true of the city council. The church merely has to prove that the government is criticizing their doctrine without a noble cause. If I was the Catholic Church I would denounce the San Francisco council as an oppressive regime in every church in the nation as being bigots and Anti Catholic. The question is whether the Catholic Church has the courage to stand up for freedom and against intolerance.

Yet when someone prays as a City Council member, not demanding others do so, that’s unconstitutional.

Yes, if the prayer “lacks a primarily secular purpose or a primarily secular effect.”