If no one in the body of public officials objects, then I don't possibly see how it could be a violation and more importantly it would be a violation to disallow it. That being said, if strict Constitutionalists want to apply it without "respecting the establishment" then if the public body were in agreement and no one objected, the meeting could open with a Jewish prayer, a Islamic prayer, a Wiccan prayer, or any other prayer the body deemed acceptable and not objectionable. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion is exactly what our founding fathers intended. That also means we must accept that all Americans are not Christians and if the public body is not, then we have to also protect their First Amendment rights as vehemently as we protect our own..
Last year in the Town of Greece, a group of atheists filed action in the NYS Supreme Court against the Greece Town Board because they begin their meetings with an opening prayer.
The group claims this is unconstitutional as it violates separation of church and state.
The court; however, ruled in favor of the Town because they do not restrict opening prayer being offered by any one religious denomination over another. They have an open invitation to clergy, or members, of any denomination to give an opening invocation before the start of the meetings.
While I respect peoples' rights to believe as they choose, I feel that forcing separation of church and state is over the top, and over-exaggerated. If there are some who are offended by an opening prayer before a government body's meetings, they should quietly leave the meeting room until that prayer is over. They should not try to force an end to something that has been occurring in our country for decades.
(Just a what-if) What if an atheist swears upon the bible in a court of law? Is he or she guilty of a crime? Anyone can swear on the bible to tell the truth and then lie their butt off.
I'd say that prayers before meetings is fine as long as every religion in the room is afforded the same practice.
Doug, I don't believe that everyone in the room has to agree to it, only the officials of the public body. In a meeting setting, the public body is in charge, sets the rules of order, and decides the content of the meeting. Like Raymond pointed out, the offended person can leave the room for that portion of the meeting and return for the business. No one is being forced to sit through the sheer horror of having to listen to a prayer regardless of to whom it is being prayed.
I'm a bit confused about this. Why is a prayer before a meeting necessary? If those are so inclined to pray before a meeting, can they not do it themselves rather than publicly?It may not be "sheer horror" to listen to a prayer but I don't think it has any place there. I may be old fashioned but I thought people generally go to their church/place of worship to pray. I seem to be the minority here, but I think religion and government are too intertwined.
Jeff, it seems to me if the public body all agree the prayer is OK even if one person in the audience objects, that is much closer to establishment of religion than if all of the audience agrees and one member of the public body objects.
Why pray before holding a meeting at which decisions for others will be made about how they will be allowed to conduct themselves and how they will be allowed to express themselves and how they will be allowed to live their lives?
Because prayer, of whatever type or denomination or flavor, is a sign that we are not the supreme power in the universe. That our lusts and desires and ambitions are subject to the judgment of a greater power is essential to the continuation of civilized society.
Atheists make a fatal mistake when they argue that belief in a higher power is detrimental to civilization. Why should a person not kill someone who annoys them? There is no punishment other than death, right? If the annoyance is sufficient, why the heck not? We each are the arbiters of right and wrong in their worldview.
Really, the empty argument that we enlightened folk can make our own rules and that we can enforce the respect of these by others based upon a rational measuring of what is of value and what is not is hubristic BS. I recommend a detailed study of the Soviet Union, North Korea and Communist China and the obscene violations of human rights that each and every one has committed.
I don't care if you believe in Yahweh or Allah or the Great Spaghetti Monster. The belief that you are not the ultimate power in the universe is what is key to civilization and progress. History proves this.
Sorry to bring reality into a pleasant bit of hubristic theater.
Howard, if you disregard my first post then you may have a point. Inclusive of my first post it doesn't make sense. Everyone is quick to point out the establishment clause at the expense of not prohibiting the fee exercise thereof. It is a multilayered amendment.
Come on, make the argument justifying the Humanist position that humans can come to an agreement among themselves as to a set of standards appropriate to civilized people which are enforceable through reasonable and rational acceptance and agreement of all those involved. Then argue that this agreement can be binding and can have any kind of permanence in a world where a Humanist's opinion is sufficient to impose a regime upon the masses.
Really. Give it a shot. You will not, because even though you think you are a member of the elite who should rule the masses for their betterment, you actually know that you are an insecure person who desperately hopes that nobody will ever know that you are.
Fear is the lash that drives the insecure. From the millionaire investor to the politician. Sorry, for talking about inconvenient truths, Mr. Obama.
You know, a down vote (or up vote) here or there doesn''t really mean a whole friggin' lot. Any opinion is going to have somebody who disagrees.
I pay a lot more attention when it starts getting to four or five in either direction. That ought to tell you something about how your opinion is being perceived.
And I consider it perfectly within somebody's rights to say "I don't like that opinion" without overtly stating why.
I wouldn't sweat one or two down votes, but multiple down votes should maybe a wake up call to re-evaluate.
This is one of those rare times I will disagree with you Howard. I'm with you on the first sentence, someone is always going to disagree. If you believe in what you write as an opinion then who cares if you get 1,000 likes or dislikes. I respect anyone who comes here and posts an opinion using their actual name. Even if I think it's wrong or stupid. Who cares what I think anyway? Don't encourage anyone to change their mind based on public opinion, we have far too much of that in this world already. I'm for diversity in opinion and thought. Discourse as well. Vehemently. Always.
I hit thumbs up and down without any comment all the time, Kyle. It's a great feature. Sometimes I don't feel like arguing a subject but I still have an opinion. I have one about this subject, but don't care to enter the debate. I'm sure there are many others as well.
Howard, the vote count represents more votes that ended up a - 5, at this time. I found it humorous that that many people would both see my shabby bit of opinion and express an opinion by voting without making some observation about why they thought my position in error. Within seconds of posting a down vote hit. Ok, Bwaahahahahhah.
Dave, You agree with Howard more often than you are letting on. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
Charlie, politicians always prey. On us. I maintain that even the worst sociopath is less likely to truly become a depraved threat to society if he is forced to regularly observe the rituals of civilization in order to operate within society.
I just made you -4 Mr. Slocum and I will tell you why.
Prayer at a public event is FORCING those of different beliefs to listen to a prayer. If you need prayer to help you in your guidance of decisions, say it in your head. No can FORCE you not to think.
Prayer is for private or in the church. Not in the town hall.
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
Oh and unless the Up/Down vote mechanism written for this website is attached to a "Reason For Vote" for the vote to be registered people have the FREEDOM to post a reason or not.
"Prayer at a public event is FORCING those of different beliefs to listen to a prayer. "
Last time I checked, attendance at public meetings is not mandatory, nor is being in the room for the entire meeting. Exercising First Amendment rights should not require a person to conduct an informal poll of all those present in a situation before saying something that MIGHT be construed as offensive.
It's time for people to take some polite personal responsibility and excuse themselves from that portion of the meeting. If they are that offended by hearing someone pray at a public meeting, they should start a campaign against the offenders to get them removed from their position for such egregious errors. Take ownership of your offense and take action to prevent it from occurring again. If they are elected, run against them and be true to your convictions by running on the platform that their dereliction of duty came in the form of prayer.
Well no duh public meetings are not mandatory but you are saying I want to hear information on my CIVIC rights and what the town has planned for MY life I should just listen to the prayer and deal if I want to be part of society? Hmm I wonder what the opinion would be if a Muslim was on the town board and everyone had to wait until he laid out his rug and faced mecca while everyone in the room waited for him to finish.
Why is it so hard for people to pray inside their homes or their church? Town halls are not places of worship or a place to discuss religion....they are for discussing garbage fees and voting on advancing water districts, etc. Why shouldnt those take "polite personal responsibility" and say a prayer to themselves BEFORE they take up the business of ALL citizens who they are serving (not just the ones who practice the same religion as them)?
There was probably a time where the same building hosted town meetings and church services...that is no longer the case and religion/govt should be SEPARATE.
" Hmm I wonder what the opinion would be if a Muslim was on the town board and everyone had to wait until he laid out his rug and faced mecca while everyone in the room waited for him to finish. " If you read post #1, you will have your answer.
If no one in the public body objected, not polling all those in attendance. The public body is the authority at a meeting. If someone within that body objects, then no prayer...simple. Of course using Roberts Rules of Order, the chair of the body could overrule the dissenting member. Polling the audience is unnecessary since their attendance is not a function of the meeting. There is no easy answer if you take into consideration not prohibiting the free exercise thereof section of the clause.
One of the points I made earlier is that the founding fathers intended freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Maybe if there were more, not less public expression of all faiths, there would be a greater understanding and perhaps a greater tolerance for the faith of others. There are very few major faiths whose tenets include hiding your beliefs from the public and only practicing it behind closed doors.
John, I vaguely remember a couple comments and side discussion about a person or group that didn't like the idea of the prayer. We had real problems at the time and I didn't give something so silly any attention at all.
I remember Bob Bialkowski when he first started on Council saying he wanted other religions to be able to do an opening prayer, but I don't think he found any interested.
Can anyone tell me why the Supreme Court gets to vote that, Our Constitutional Right is a violation? Even if someone is offended by the prayer before the meeting, it does not mean the others can't practice their Constitutional Right. If a person offended then they have the right to cover their ears and whine like baby. Stop with the non-sense and grow up people.
I want to offer a sincere "Thank You!" to each of you that have waded in here. That is what is necessary for The Republic to continue. We have somehow gotten to the point where disagreement is something that must be covered up like it is a shameful personal failure.
Discourse and disagreement are the most essential entertainments of civilized societies. If you won't argue, if you won't disagree, if you won't call shenanigans, then of what use are you, exactly, to the continuation of civilization?
I question the assumptions made by those who declare with such stridency and volume that they are the ultimate and exceptional paragons of inclusiveness and tolerance. I ask you to answer for yourself: What do I not accept as something that others should be able to do or believe? What of these things that I disapprove of are appropriate for them to express in public? Why or why not? By what right do I proscribe them?
The bigotry of movement-atheists, progressive-socialists and garden-variety American liberals is actually breathtaking when called out for what it is. I have heard the most obscene bits of prejudice casually voiced by so-called liberals on way too many occasions to count.
That is my experience. It may, or may not, match yours. I state it in hope that someone will explain how it is not bigotry to assume that someone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, inbred, fascistic, crazy, rural, moronic, racist, bigoted, Eurocentric, sexist, a shill for corporations, homophobic or a Free-Mason.
That is the point: We have to hear each other and consider each other's arguments like grown human beings, not pre-schoolers scared of the "other". Step up and speak. I'll respect you for expressing your opinion, even if I think you haven't done much thinking before opinionating.
I have watched this discussion with great interest. I have a few comments to make, Debbie I can appreciate, and I acknowledge your opinion. However that action which your opinion supported seems to promote intolerance. There are many places in Govt that intolerance is appropriate (like ethics lol) But Jeff made an excellent point. The Constitution supports freedom OF religion. And the way I read it seperation of church and state was intended to keep the mandate of an official and established religion out of the realm of possibility. European history is full of religious persecutions and rebellions because of "State religions"
I am led to believe this because not one founding document is without reference to a higher power... Be it the "In God We Trust" on our currency, to statements like...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As a matter of fact, after the first amendment was approved and put in place, this happened...
The framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
So the intent of the First Amendment seems to me the attempt to prevent a theocracy arising here in this country.
Everyone is right in this argument in my opinion, if you dont like the prayer, then ignore it ... like you do the references to God in our money, in the Declaration of Independence and other such places it is firmly entrenched.
Oh I see Jeff so before any govt business gets discussed the public body says we are gonna pray, anyone object? and if someone does chair says too bad and then govt business commences?
Unless it is a church requesting permission or a permit for say building a shelter on their property to hold outdoor services what on earth does religion have to do with govt business!?
Promoting intolerance? I am not advocating shuttering churches or the banning of wearing crosses in public for pete's sake...I am speaking of separation of church and state and the fact that NO ONE should have to listen to any prayer before having government business conducted. No it doesnt guarantee freedom FROM religion, that is obvious by the fact that someone can stand on the street corner and shout JESUS IS COMING without being arrested, and the Westboro Hate Group can hold their protests outside of funerals...but how do government officials saying a prayer on govt time, whether you change up the denomination of the prayer said or not, not PROMOTE that religion on that particular day while EXCLUDING all the others on that day?
Like I said there may have been a time where the church in town also served as the govt. meeting place and/or school, etc., (Walnut Grove comes to mind) and out of respect for the church allowing the meeting to take place in their house whatever custom that church followed before the meeting would be appropriate. But that is not the case anymore...so I do not see where a prayer is necessary or appropriate in a town hall where the WHOLE population of that town's GOVERNMENT business is conducted. Why should one portion of the town have to plug their ears or ignore when the two are supposed to be SEPARATE? How about those who wish to say a prayer meet outside BEFORE the meeting say a prayer and then go do what they were elected to do. If public expression is the magic answer what could be more expressive than a prayer circle in front of the building out in public?
Debbie, you are missing a twofold point. First, prayer, regardless to whom it it is prayed is not only religious activity but also protected free speech. Denying it based on it's content is a violation of the First Amendment. Second, public bodies have complete authority over the agenda of their meetings from start to finish. If they choose to open the meeting with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Star Spangled Banner, the reading of the periodic table of elements, or Jimmy Kimmels monologue, that is their authoritative right without having to poll anybody as to it's appropriateness.
If your argument is simply that you don't see that it is necessary to pray before a public meeting, you are correct, it is not necessary but if the public body deems it part of the content of the meeting then attendees can either sit through it or excuse themselves.
I still don't get the concept that prayer of any kind is so offensive that someone would have to leave the room or as you suggest, plug their ears. That comes across to me as more of dysfunction of the individual than the legality of the content.
Remember The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. Last time I checked almost every religion out there be it muslim, jewish, nodenominational, even the old pagan religions of the far east and the ancient worshipers of Odin, and Zeus had one thing in common. They all prayed. So your assertion that praying is supporting one religion over any other is invalid.
Each member of a village, town and city Govt has the same constitutional rights you do Debbie therefore they have the right to say a prayer before a meeting,
As for your stance not promoting intolerance? It sure doesn't promote tolerance thats for sure, what next for these meetings. Objecting to certain people attending because of their financial status or social status? Hey lets keep youth out that haven't reached the age of 18 too. How about the elderly?
As I pointed out before.....the First Proclaimation, from the first president of the US was requested "Specifically" by congress after the completion of the 1st Amendment.
On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy.
Does THAT sound like a separation of church and state?
How about the actual Proclamation that President Washington gave?
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor ."
How about if THAT was repeated before every Govt meeting? People of your opinion would have a cow right there in the room. Yet it was acceptable and greatly approved by the very drafters and writers of our Constitution and requested by them to be done as an Official Govt statement.
Sorry Jeff but I do not agree that I am missing the point.
1) Please show me where I am advocating the arrest of the people for saying the prayer in a govt meeting? There ARE limits to the first amendment (public forum regulation; inciting, provocative or offense, defamation, etc)...it is not merely black and white as you state.
2) For the record I dont personally find prayer offensive so as to require the plugging of my ears or the leaving of the room. I just find there is absolutely no place in a governmental meeting for any prayer, whether it be to God, Zeus, Satan or SpongeBob Square Pants.
Kyle
1) No those exact words are not in the constitution, but Jefferson was very clear on his thoughts of a "wall of separation" . I am not saying those people who want to pray should be denied their constitutional right to do so...I am saying it should not be said in a govt. building on govt. time.
2) I am not quite sure where you get those words by Washington were "SPECIFICALLY requested by congress" regarding the first amendment (the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 1791) They are from his Thanksgiving proclamation made in 1789.
If no one in the body of
If no one in the body of public officials objects, then I don't possibly see how it could be a violation and more importantly it would be a violation to disallow it. That being said, if strict Constitutionalists want to apply it without "respecting the establishment" then if the public body were in agreement and no one objected, the meeting could open with a Jewish prayer, a Islamic prayer, a Wiccan prayer, or any other prayer the body deemed acceptable and not objectionable. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion is exactly what our founding fathers intended. That also means we must accept that all Americans are not Christians and if the public body is not, then we have to also protect their First Amendment rights as vehemently as we protect our own..
Last year in the Town of
Last year in the Town of Greece, a group of atheists filed action in the NYS Supreme Court against the Greece Town Board because they begin their meetings with an opening prayer.
The group claims this is unconstitutional as it violates separation of church and state.
The court; however, ruled in favor of the Town because they do not restrict opening prayer being offered by any one religious denomination over another. They have an open invitation to clergy, or members, of any denomination to give an opening invocation before the start of the meetings.
While I respect peoples' rights to believe as they choose, I feel that forcing separation of church and state is over the top, and over-exaggerated. If there are some who are offended by an opening prayer before a government body's meetings, they should quietly leave the meeting room until that prayer is over. They should not try to force an end to something that has been occurring in our country for decades.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/16/everything-you-…
(Just a what-if) What if an
(Just a what-if) What if an atheist swears upon the bible in a court of law? Is he or she guilty of a crime? Anyone can swear on the bible to tell the truth and then lie their butt off.
I'd say that prayers before meetings is fine as long as every religion in the room is afforded the same practice.
Doug, I don't believe that
Doug, I don't believe that everyone in the room has to agree to it, only the officials of the public body. In a meeting setting, the public body is in charge, sets the rules of order, and decides the content of the meeting. Like Raymond pointed out, the offended person can leave the room for that portion of the meeting and return for the business. No one is being forced to sit through the sheer horror of having to listen to a prayer regardless of to whom it is being prayed.
I'm a bit confused about
I'm a bit confused about this. Why is a prayer before a meeting necessary? If those are so inclined to pray before a meeting, can they not do it themselves rather than publicly?It may not be "sheer horror" to listen to a prayer but I don't think it has any place there. I may be old fashioned but I thought people generally go to their church/place of worship to pray. I seem to be the minority here, but I think religion and government are too intertwined.
Jeff, it seems to me if the
Jeff, it seems to me if the public body all agree the prayer is OK even if one person in the audience objects, that is much closer to establishment of religion than if all of the audience agrees and one member of the public body objects.
Why pray before holding a
Why pray before holding a meeting at which decisions for others will be made about how they will be allowed to conduct themselves and how they will be allowed to express themselves and how they will be allowed to live their lives?
Because prayer, of whatever type or denomination or flavor, is a sign that we are not the supreme power in the universe. That our lusts and desires and ambitions are subject to the judgment of a greater power is essential to the continuation of civilized society.
Atheists make a fatal mistake when they argue that belief in a higher power is detrimental to civilization. Why should a person not kill someone who annoys them? There is no punishment other than death, right? If the annoyance is sufficient, why the heck not? We each are the arbiters of right and wrong in their worldview.
Really, the empty argument that we enlightened folk can make our own rules and that we can enforce the respect of these by others based upon a rational measuring of what is of value and what is not is hubristic BS. I recommend a detailed study of the Soviet Union, North Korea and Communist China and the obscene violations of human rights that each and every one has committed.
I don't care if you believe in Yahweh or Allah or the Great Spaghetti Monster. The belief that you are not the ultimate power in the universe is what is key to civilization and progress. History proves this.
Sorry to bring reality into a pleasant bit of hubristic theater.
Howard, if you disregard my
Howard, if you disregard my first post then you may have a point. Inclusive of my first post it doesn't make sense. Everyone is quick to point out the establishment clause at the expense of not prohibiting the fee exercise thereof. It is a multilayered amendment.
Phantom down votes with no
Phantom down votes with no comments?
Cowards.
Come on, make the argument justifying the Humanist position that humans can come to an agreement among themselves as to a set of standards appropriate to civilized people which are enforceable through reasonable and rational acceptance and agreement of all those involved. Then argue that this agreement can be binding and can have any kind of permanence in a world where a Humanist's opinion is sufficient to impose a regime upon the masses.
Really. Give it a shot. You will not, because even though you think you are a member of the elite who should rule the masses for their betterment, you actually know that you are an insecure person who desperately hopes that nobody will ever know that you are.
Fear is the lash that drives the insecure. From the millionaire investor to the politician. Sorry, for talking about inconvenient truths, Mr. Obama.
HA HA! -1.
HA HA! -1.
BWHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!!!!
You know, a down vote (or up
You know, a down vote (or up vote) here or there doesn''t really mean a whole friggin' lot. Any opinion is going to have somebody who disagrees.
I pay a lot more attention when it starts getting to four or five in either direction. That ought to tell you something about how your opinion is being perceived.
And I consider it perfectly within somebody's rights to say "I don't like that opinion" without overtly stating why.
I wouldn't sweat one or two down votes, but multiple down votes should maybe a wake up call to re-evaluate.
This is one of those rare
This is one of those rare times I will disagree with you Howard. I'm with you on the first sentence, someone is always going to disagree. If you believe in what you write as an opinion then who cares if you get 1,000 likes or dislikes. I respect anyone who comes here and posts an opinion using their actual name. Even if I think it's wrong or stupid. Who cares what I think anyway? Don't encourage anyone to change their mind based on public opinion, we have far too much of that in this world already. I'm for diversity in opinion and thought. Discourse as well. Vehemently. Always.
I hit thumbs up and down without any comment all the time, Kyle. It's a great feature. Sometimes I don't feel like arguing a subject but I still have an opinion. I have one about this subject, but don't care to enter the debate. I'm sure there are many others as well.
Kyle you assume politicians
Kyle you assume politicians are actually preying to God and not just to be seen as humble.
Charlie, You were on Council
Charlie,
You were on Council for 4 years. Did anyone ever complain to you about this?
Howard, the vote count
Howard, the vote count represents more votes that ended up a - 5, at this time. I found it humorous that that many people would both see my shabby bit of opinion and express an opinion by voting without making some observation about why they thought my position in error. Within seconds of posting a down vote hit. Ok, Bwaahahahahhah.
Dave, You agree with Howard more often than you are letting on. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
Charlie, politicians always prey. On us. I maintain that even the worst sociopath is less likely to truly become a depraved threat to society if he is forced to regularly observe the rituals of civilization in order to operate within society.
I just made you -4 Mr. Slocum
I just made you -4 Mr. Slocum and I will tell you why.
Prayer at a public event is FORCING those of different beliefs to listen to a prayer. If you need prayer to help you in your guidance of decisions, say it in your head. No can FORCE you not to think.
Prayer is for private or in the church. Not in the town hall.
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
Oh and unless the Up/Down
Oh and unless the Up/Down vote mechanism written for this website is attached to a "Reason For Vote" for the vote to be registered people have the FREEDOM to post a reason or not.
"Prayer at a public event is
"Prayer at a public event is FORCING those of different beliefs to listen to a prayer. "
Last time I checked, attendance at public meetings is not mandatory, nor is being in the room for the entire meeting. Exercising First Amendment rights should not require a person to conduct an informal poll of all those present in a situation before saying something that MIGHT be construed as offensive.
It's time for people to take some polite personal responsibility and excuse themselves from that portion of the meeting. If they are that offended by hearing someone pray at a public meeting, they should start a campaign against the offenders to get them removed from their position for such egregious errors. Take ownership of your offense and take action to prevent it from occurring again. If they are elected, run against them and be true to your convictions by running on the platform that their dereliction of duty came in the form of prayer.
Well no duh public meetings
Well no duh public meetings are not mandatory but you are saying I want to hear information on my CIVIC rights and what the town has planned for MY life I should just listen to the prayer and deal if I want to be part of society? Hmm I wonder what the opinion would be if a Muslim was on the town board and everyone had to wait until he laid out his rug and faced mecca while everyone in the room waited for him to finish.
Why is it so hard for people to pray inside their homes or their church? Town halls are not places of worship or a place to discuss religion....they are for discussing garbage fees and voting on advancing water districts, etc. Why shouldnt those take "polite personal responsibility" and say a prayer to themselves BEFORE they take up the business of ALL citizens who they are serving (not just the ones who practice the same religion as them)?
There was probably a time where the same building hosted town meetings and church services...that is no longer the case and religion/govt should be SEPARATE.
" Hmm I wonder what the
" Hmm I wonder what the opinion would be if a Muslim was on the town board and everyone had to wait until he laid out his rug and faced mecca while everyone in the room waited for him to finish. " If you read post #1, you will have your answer.
From post #1 "then if the
From post #1
"then if the public body were in agreement and no one objected,"
and if somebody objected? Then what?
If no one in the public body
If no one in the public body objected, not polling all those in attendance. The public body is the authority at a meeting. If someone within that body objects, then no prayer...simple. Of course using Roberts Rules of Order, the chair of the body could overrule the dissenting member. Polling the audience is unnecessary since their attendance is not a function of the meeting. There is no easy answer if you take into consideration not prohibiting the free exercise thereof section of the clause.
One of the points I made
One of the points I made earlier is that the founding fathers intended freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Maybe if there were more, not less public expression of all faiths, there would be a greater understanding and perhaps a greater tolerance for the faith of others. There are very few major faiths whose tenets include hiding your beliefs from the public and only practicing it behind closed doors.
John, I vaguely remember a
John, I vaguely remember a couple comments and side discussion about a person or group that didn't like the idea of the prayer. We had real problems at the time and I didn't give something so silly any attention at all.
I remember Bob Bialkowski
I remember Bob Bialkowski when he first started on Council saying he wanted other religions to be able to do an opening prayer, but I don't think he found any interested.
Can anyone tell me why the
Can anyone tell me why the Supreme Court gets to vote that, Our Constitutional Right is a violation? Even if someone is offended by the prayer before the meeting, it does not mean the others can't practice their Constitutional Right. If a person offended then they have the right to cover their ears and whine like baby. Stop with the non-sense and grow up people.
I want to offer a sincere
I want to offer a sincere "Thank You!" to each of you that have waded in here. That is what is necessary for The Republic to continue. We have somehow gotten to the point where disagreement is something that must be covered up like it is a shameful personal failure.
Discourse and disagreement are the most essential entertainments of civilized societies. If you won't argue, if you won't disagree, if you won't call shenanigans, then of what use are you, exactly, to the continuation of civilization?
I question the assumptions made by those who declare with such stridency and volume that they are the ultimate and exceptional paragons of inclusiveness and tolerance. I ask you to answer for yourself: What do I not accept as something that others should be able to do or believe? What of these things that I disapprove of are appropriate for them to express in public? Why or why not? By what right do I proscribe them?
The bigotry of movement-atheists, progressive-socialists and garden-variety American liberals is actually breathtaking when called out for what it is. I have heard the most obscene bits of prejudice casually voiced by so-called liberals on way too many occasions to count.
That is my experience. It may, or may not, match yours. I state it in hope that someone will explain how it is not bigotry to assume that someone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, inbred, fascistic, crazy, rural, moronic, racist, bigoted, Eurocentric, sexist, a shill for corporations, homophobic or a Free-Mason.
That is the point: We have to hear each other and consider each other's arguments like grown human beings, not pre-schoolers scared of the "other". Step up and speak. I'll respect you for expressing your opinion, even if I think you haven't done much thinking before opinionating.
“If everybody is thinking
“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” George S. Patton Jr.
I have watched this
I have watched this discussion with great interest. I have a few comments to make, Debbie I can appreciate, and I acknowledge your opinion. However that action which your opinion supported seems to promote intolerance. There are many places in Govt that intolerance is appropriate (like ethics lol) But Jeff made an excellent point. The Constitution supports freedom OF religion. And the way I read it seperation of church and state was intended to keep the mandate of an official and established religion out of the realm of possibility. European history is full of religious persecutions and rebellions because of "State religions"
I am led to believe this because not one founding document is without reference to a higher power... Be it the "In God We Trust" on our currency, to statements like...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As a matter of fact, after the first amendment was approved and put in place, this happened...
The framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
So the intent of the First Amendment seems to me the attempt to prevent a theocracy arising here in this country.
Everyone is right in this argument in my opinion, if you dont like the prayer, then ignore it ... like you do the references to God in our money, in the Declaration of Independence and other such places it is firmly entrenched.
Oh I see Jeff so before any
Oh I see Jeff so before any govt business gets discussed the public body says we are gonna pray, anyone object? and if someone does chair says too bad and then govt business commences?
Unless it is a church requesting permission or a permit for say building a shelter on their property to hold outdoor services what on earth does religion have to do with govt business!?
Promoting intolerance? I am not advocating shuttering churches or the banning of wearing crosses in public for pete's sake...I am speaking of separation of church and state and the fact that NO ONE should have to listen to any prayer before having government business conducted. No it doesnt guarantee freedom FROM religion, that is obvious by the fact that someone can stand on the street corner and shout JESUS IS COMING without being arrested, and the Westboro Hate Group can hold their protests outside of funerals...but how do government officials saying a prayer on govt time, whether you change up the denomination of the prayer said or not, not PROMOTE that religion on that particular day while EXCLUDING all the others on that day?
Like I said there may have been a time where the church in town also served as the govt. meeting place and/or school, etc., (Walnut Grove comes to mind) and out of respect for the church allowing the meeting to take place in their house whatever custom that church followed before the meeting would be appropriate. But that is not the case anymore...so I do not see where a prayer is necessary or appropriate in a town hall where the WHOLE population of that town's GOVERNMENT business is conducted. Why should one portion of the town have to plug their ears or ignore when the two are supposed to be SEPARATE? How about those who wish to say a prayer meet outside BEFORE the meeting say a prayer and then go do what they were elected to do. If public expression is the magic answer what could be more expressive than a prayer circle in front of the building out in public?
Debbie, you are missing a
Debbie, you are missing a twofold point. First, prayer, regardless to whom it it is prayed is not only religious activity but also protected free speech. Denying it based on it's content is a violation of the First Amendment. Second, public bodies have complete authority over the agenda of their meetings from start to finish. If they choose to open the meeting with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Star Spangled Banner, the reading of the periodic table of elements, or Jimmy Kimmels monologue, that is their authoritative right without having to poll anybody as to it's appropriateness.
If your argument is simply that you don't see that it is necessary to pray before a public meeting, you are correct, it is not necessary but if the public body deems it part of the content of the meeting then attendees can either sit through it or excuse themselves.
I still don't get the concept that prayer of any kind is so offensive that someone would have to leave the room or as you suggest, plug their ears. That comes across to me as more of dysfunction of the individual than the legality of the content.
Remember The Constitution
Remember The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. Last time I checked almost every religion out there be it muslim, jewish, nodenominational, even the old pagan religions of the far east and the ancient worshipers of Odin, and Zeus had one thing in common. They all prayed. So your assertion that praying is supporting one religion over any other is invalid.
Each member of a village, town and city Govt has the same constitutional rights you do Debbie therefore they have the right to say a prayer before a meeting,
As for your stance not promoting intolerance? It sure doesn't promote tolerance thats for sure, what next for these meetings. Objecting to certain people attending because of their financial status or social status? Hey lets keep youth out that haven't reached the age of 18 too. How about the elderly?
As I pointed out
As I pointed out before.....the First Proclaimation, from the first president of the US was requested "Specifically" by congress after the completion of the 1st Amendment.
On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy.
Does THAT sound like a separation of church and state?
How about the actual Proclamation that President Washington gave?
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor ."
How about if THAT was repeated before every Govt meeting? People of your opinion would have a cow right there in the room. Yet it was acceptable and greatly approved by the very drafters and writers of our Constitution and requested by them to be done as an Official Govt statement.
Sorry Jeff but I do not agree
Sorry Jeff but I do not agree that I am missing the point.
1) Please show me where I am advocating the arrest of the people for saying the prayer in a govt meeting? There ARE limits to the first amendment (public forum regulation; inciting, provocative or offense, defamation, etc)...it is not merely black and white as you state.
2) For the record I dont personally find prayer offensive so as to require the plugging of my ears or the leaving of the room. I just find there is absolutely no place in a governmental meeting for any prayer, whether it be to God, Zeus, Satan or SpongeBob Square Pants.
Kyle
1) No those exact words are not in the constitution, but Jefferson was very clear on his thoughts of a "wall of separation" . I am not saying those people who want to pray should be denied their constitutional right to do so...I am saying it should not be said in a govt. building on govt. time.
2) I am not quite sure where you get those words by Washington were "SPECIFICALLY requested by congress" regarding the first amendment (the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 1791) They are from his Thanksgiving proclamation made in 1789.