Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't going to weigh in on this one but...it seems the polarizing effect of a "Church of Satan" is rearing it's ugly head.
The Constitution doesn't call for a separation of Church and State. It simply says there will be no Govt Sponsored religion (i.e. Church of England) and guarantees that the Govt will allow free expression of religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now...the argument can and has been made that some religions are more acceptable than others to certain groups...but that has nothing to do with the Government and as such, is more a function of people's desire for acceptance in their own beliefs and surrounding themselves with like minded people. The "Separation of Church and State" moniker was from Thomas Jefferson and has run rampant through American History when the original intent, as I read it, was the inclusion of all religions rather than the elimination of any. Where one belief structure is allowed, all MUST be allowed in a Government function/meeting/building/etc.
Do I think it is appropriate to start off a Government Meeting with a prayer? There was a time and place for it in the past when Christianity was the dominant religion of the country as a whole. It still is a dominant religious belief and I personally believe we need a little of God's guidance in politics...but legally...any faith should be allowed to open the meeting if that is a practice the City Council wants to maintain. Otherwise...the members could gather in groups, according to their religion, offer their invocation and then come together in the meeting chamber to conduct their meeting. Each religion thinks theirs is the correct one, yes even Atheists, so that would be a more personal decision to practice rather than one as part of an official meeting. Otherwise, what is the choice here? 57 different prayers before the meeting commences?
Bottom line: We are all Americans. We look different, we pray different, eat different food, drive different vehicles and (lately) get overly offended by different things. It is what our Founders and Military members have sworn to defend, fought for and died for. Your right to argue about some silly nothing of an opening prayer at a City Council meeting and whether or not a non-Christian group should be able to do it. Simple answer is, yes. Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, Satanic...doesn't matter...they are included under the law. Don't like it? Quit saying prayers as part of an official Government meeting.
This is obviously being done as a publicity stunt but so what? If there is a god, and that is a big almighty-if-he’s obviously not answering many prayers. Look at the condition of the world and all the horrible crimes and terrorism. This god allows those evil things to happen so he must be evil himself. If this god exists he sounds more like a punisher than a savior.
So if ya want to pray to some fictional fairy in the hopes that it will somehow make the world better and your life complete, go for it. Doesn’t affect me one bit.
I wasn't going to weigh in on this one but...it seems the polarizing effect of a "Church of Satan" is rearing it's ugly head.
The Constitution doesn't call for a separation of Church and State. It simply says there will be no Govt Sponsored religion (i.e. Church of England) and guarantees that the Govt will allow free expression of religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now...the argument can and has been made that some religions are more acceptable than others to certain groups...but that has nothing to do with the Government and as such, is more a function of people's desire for acceptance in their own beliefs and surrounding themselves with like minded people. The "Separation of Church and State" moniker was from Thomas Jefferson and has run rampant through American History when the original intent, as I read it, was the inclusion of all religions rather than the elimination of any. Where one belief structure is allowed, all MUST be allowed in a Government function/meeting/building/etc.
Do I think it is appropriate to start off a Government Meeting with a prayer? There was a time and place for it in the past when Christianity was the dominant religion of the country as a whole. It still is a dominant religious belief and I personally believe we need a little of God's guidance in politics...but legally...any faith should be allowed to open the meeting if that is a practice the City Council wants to maintain. Otherwise...the members could gather in groups, according to their religion, offer their invocation and then come together in the meeting chamber to conduct their meeting. Each religion thinks theirs is the correct one, yes even Atheists, so that would be a more personal decision to practice rather than one as part of an official meeting. Otherwise, what is the choice here? 57 different prayers before the meeting commences?
Bottom line: We are all Americans. We look different, we pray different, eat different food, drive different vehicles and (lately) get overly offended by different things. It is what our Founders and Military members have sworn to defend, fought for and died for. Your right to argue about some silly nothing of an opening prayer at a City Council meeting and whether or not a non-Christian group should be able to do it. Simple answer is, yes. Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, Satanic...doesn't matter...they are included under the law. Don't like it? Quit saying prayers as part of an official Government meeting.
Good post, especially on every group thinking they have the "correct one". Though to me in the perfect world, government business should be only about government business and religion shouldn't be part of it in any way. In my view, that's a private/personal belief that I don't want to hear others spouting about that I might or might not believe in/agree with. I believe it serves nothing other than to create division in such a venue given the common "my belief is the correct one" that many have at a deep emotional level on the topic.
But given the reality of it all, I agree, the bottom line is that this is a rare black/white no gray area....either allow any religious group to say a prayer or none of them. As soon as the picking/choosing rears its head, a "vote" is needed by a government entity to decide if a certain religious group can say what they want to say, we get into an ugly area. Favoritism/picking and choosing rears its head. I think the Satanists would have a valid lawsuit if the "vote" goes against them here.
But given the reality of it all, I agree, the bottom line is that this is a rare black/white no gray area....either allow any religious group to say a prayer or none of them. As soon as the picking/choosing rears its head, a "vote" is needed by a government entity to decide if a certain religious group can say what they want to say, we get into an ugly area. Favoritism/picking and choosing rears its head. I think the Satanists would have a valid lawsuit if the "vote" goes against them here.
Yeah but see there is the rub. There shouldn't BE a vote. Include everyone or no one. I don't think there is much to quibble about, Constitutionally speaking. Lady Liberty is crying under her blindfold.
Yeah but see there is the rub. There shouldn't BE a vote. Include everyone or no one. I don't think there is much to quibble about, Constitutionally speaking. Lady Liberty is crying under her blindfold.
I agree with you on this aspect also, there shouldn't be a vote on the issue....that's why I stated the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
As soon as the picking/choosing rears its head, a "vote" is needed by a government entity to decide if a certain religious group can say what they want to say, we get into an ugly area.
But the reality is there will be a vote, unfortunately.
You can not have it both ways. If the door is open to one religion, than it's open to all.
That's why the Founding Fathers got it right.
But it's unfortunate that in today's political climate, the founding fathers/word of law is often cast aside and ignored. The rules are useless when they aren't enforced.
It is obvious to you are Christian and are rationalizing the inclusion of one faith and excluding others. However, your rationalization doesn't exclude certain facts. The fact is the Supreme Court enables local government to allow religious invocation but they do not allow them to discriminate among faiths. So by your words, they are in fact required to "serve as an open forum for any religious group" ie not discriminate against any particular faith. Your opinion that Satanism is not a religion is just that, an opinion.
Your proposal would essentially favor a particular faith(s) since the majority of council members are Christian. If your proposal were to take place, council members could simply invite members of their own faith to give the invocation each time which would exclude other faiths and would violate the first amendment per SCOTUS.
That is actually what the U.S. Congress does.
Quote:
The only thing I agree with is this particular satanism example is a stunt. Of course, it's a stunt and my response to that is "So?" It took a stunt like this to expose the fallacy of including a religious invocation in a government meeting. And it is a very worthy stunt that exposed the hypocrisy of the right wing to essentially include Christianity in government affairs through the guise of including "religious invocation."
Christianity is neither right nor left, and you have no idea what I am. When a Catholic priest speaks in Congress for fair treatment of illegal immigrants, when we establish a federal holiday to honor a Baptist minister and create a national monument to honor him (The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King), who used Biblical injunctions to end discrimination, when Pope Francis addresses the U.S. Congress and urges them to support the poor and end wage disparity...are those negative examples of including Christianity in government affairs? I doubt you would think so, and you might even feel that such forms of Christianity have a place and a voice in politics. The 1st Amendment was never intended by the Founding Fathers to remove religion in general, nor Christianity in particular, from government or the public square. It was meant to prevent the government from establishing a state religion that everyone must join, and to ensure that people could practice their religion without fear of government interference.
Quote:
This reminds me of the disingenuous arguments proposed by Christian Evangelicals to legalize school prayer. They proposed that prayer of any type should be allowed in school. Knowing that 83% of the U.S. population identifies as Christian, this essentially legalizes Christian prayer and other Christian activities in public schools. Likewise, this "religious invocation" is another clandestine effort by Evangelicals to include Christianity at government meetings. Sure, they will offer a token Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist prayer but the overwhelming majority of these prayers are Christian. This is a violation of our first amendment and there should be no religious invocation. The separation of church and state should be emphasized at a government meeting no less. I was pleased by this recent event and just laughing my a$@ at the Evangelicals who are upset because they don't want to play by their own rules.
I'm not an Evangelical so I can't speak for them, but if the majority of the country is Christian as you say, does't it seem likely and normal that the majority of prayers offered will be Christian?
Quote:
Where are all my Republican friends who "chant" less government. I suppose government intervention is okay when it endorses your church.
I actually have no problem with actual, real, non-Christian religions that aren't hate groups or atheist performance art performances offering prayers. I actually support it. I have been present at civic events where prayers were offered by pretty near every denomination you could imagine, and I think that's great.
There are between 8000 to 30,000 Protestant denominations alone, not to mention the varieties of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Native American religions, etc. There aren't enough City Council Meetings to accommodate every one of them, so the idea that all must be invited if one is, is in error. There are numerous pastors within each denomination as well, so there is no "constitutional" belief that all must be accommodated, and that if we ask Pastor Bob to speak, we also have to ask Pastor Jim from the same denomination. If we invite a LaVeyan Satanist, do we have to invite a Luciferian Satanist? The question of preferential treatment is less important than the number of potential religions who may wish to speak.
The city councilmen wish to have the blessings of God invoked before a meeting, which is fine. Both the Supreme Court and the branches of Congress do the same thing, by long-standing tradition. In Phoenix as in Congress, they should get to decide whom to invite. The change in procedures that has been suggested, where each Phoenix councilman or councilwoman gets to rotate inviting someone to speak strikes the best balance between allowing religion to have a place in the public square (as the Founding Fathers are on record as supporting) and accommodating the different faiths.
A president is allowed to choose which pastor he wishes to hold the religious book on which he is sworn into office. He is not required by the Constitution to allow a Satanist to hold the Book of Shadows while he is sworn in. Congressmen are allowed the freedom to invite a religious figure whom they know to deliver an invocation, which is considered an honor, but is not considered a religious right. This is a long-standing principle in how government meetings are run, and so we have had prayers offered by Protestants, Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, Humanists, and so on. If a Phoenix City Councilman or a Senator wants to invite a Satanist to speak, thats is his or her prerogative, and he need only worry about the effect on his or her electoral chances.
If a Satanist or Pastafarian or a Cthulhu worshipper or any other religion that preaches hate and scorn of a particular religion, or religions in general, wishes to stand outside the council chambers and deliver a prayer, why not? The have the right to free speech. That does not mean the government is required to provide a pulpit for every form of religion or quasi-religion.
As it appears that the two Satanists in question hail from Tucson (which explains much about the University of Arizona's football team's successes, which we now know are due to diabolic intervention), there is apparently no reason for them to address a Phoenix city event.
This is what happens when too many people move here and bring there eastern, devil-worshipping dude ways...
Last edited by Arizona Mike; 02-03-2016 at 07:53 PM..
If a Satanist or Pastafarian or a Cthulhu worshipper or any other religion that preaches hate and scorn of a particular religion, or religions in general, wishes to stand outside the council chambers and deliver a prayer, why not? The have the right to free speech. That does not mean the government is required to provide a pulpit for every form of religion or quasi-religion.
And there's the rub as I don't believe you're looking at it from another angle, let's say from the view of an atheist or a Satanist who looks at what some believe in as silly/quasi/cult like/man-made. To them, they believe the same as you about your religious belief......."That does not mean the government is required to provide a pulpit for every form of religion or quasi-religion."
That's why I think this should be an A or B issue, nothing in between:
A.) NO religious chants, sayings, prayers, dances, howling at the moon every 3rd Tuesday on an even number month etc etc etc should be allowed where government business/council is being conducted. It only serves to divide and has nothing to do with the business duties of what a governing body's job is, serving the people's needs. One look at this thread shows the passion of "I'm all for this/that except.........". Shut the door on it all. It's a personal thing in my view that should be conducted in one's personal space, not in a professional setting, during government or private business.
B.)The other side can equally be argued......allow it all and take 10 minutes, 20 minutes, or 1 hour of time or whatever time is necessary for any group that claims to be religious entity to chants, sayings, prayers, dances, howling at the moon every 3rd Tuesday on an even number month etc etc etc should be allowed where government business/council is being conducted.
And as for the "majority rules" in regards to this topic, our society has already opened this door wide in many other areas/aspects of society where the "majority" view means nothing in setting and determining on what should be the only/main tone on an issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
