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.
Of course. Let's face it, a Christian prayer at the beginning of every session of Congress is what has led our Congress to be perfectly effective in serving the needs of all Americans 100%. Similar prayers have assured that state governments and local governments all act brilliantly and in the best interests of all the constituents. Those prayers have totally eliminated greed and corruption in politics. Those prayers have kept our elected officials from committing any sins and becoming embroiled in any scandals while in office. Prayer works in government meetings; it makes everything come out perfect.
Oh wait...I seem to have been having some type of seizure.
Pretty sure no one has made the claim that a simple prayer before a meeting will make everything perfect.
But as you recognize, the U.S. Congress actually employs a religious leader as the Chaplain of Congress, and pays him with public funds, just as the Armed Forces employs religious leaders as chaplains and pays them a wage and allows them to put themselves in harm's way while providing religious services to government employees.
SCOTUS, who gets the last say in this matter, says this is all constitutional. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, they narrowed that to say that there is nothing wrong with prayer before a public meeting as long as they weren't restricted to all Christian or Judaeo-Christian prayers (which, the Phoenix City Council has not, historically - I have been present at a meeting where a Native American prayer was made.)
The issue of devil-worship was even brought up, as a ludicrous example of where a policy could lead, incidentally in Town of Greece. Douglas Laycock, who represented the two women who challenged the prayers in New York as a violation of the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion as excessively sectarian, was asked by Justice Alito Jr. for an example of a prayer that would be acceptable to people of all faiths.
Mr. Laycock said “prayers to the Almighty” and “prayers to the Creator” would be all right.
“What about devil worshipers?” Justice Scalia asked.
Mr. Laycock said that “if devil worshipers believe the devil is the almighty, they might be O.K.”
(Interesting response, in that the Satanists in this case have admitted they do not.)
Ultimately, by a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the town's practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy stated: "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents."
So there you go. It's hard to argue that an invocation to a Satan, in whom the invokers have stated they do not believe, could be considered part of our tradition.
The court concluded that the town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents.
I'm all for encouraging prayers by members of minority faiths, within the realm of decency and common sense. A hate-group such as the Satanists, who are conducting a publicity stunt as atheists to try to force religious expression out of the public square, do not fall under that category, in my opinion, anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church or the Branch Davidians do.
As the sole expressed reason for conducting this atheist exercise is to try to end religious prayer at government meetings, I would suggest that the best way to oppose this, if the city council's legal representatives are too weak-willed to resist it in court, is to allow them to make their prayer, let members who oppose it walk out, and have done with it. They will then have satisfied the legal need to allow them to speak, and can continue to allow real faiths to offer prayers. There will then be no need to allow them to speak again, given the tiny numbers of Satanists in our community.
If someone recites a simple, non-offensive prayer asking for God's guidance before a city council meeting - do you really believe that is "forcing their belief system" on you? They are not demanding that you accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, they are not demanding that you accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and they are not demanding that you follow the Eightfold Path of the Buddha.
They should recite this simple, non-offensive prayer asking for God's guidance on their own time. If they choose to lead a group in said prayer as part of a government proceeding, then yes...they are forcing their belief system on me. Do I care personally? Not really. But were I a devout Hebrew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Satanist, I might have an issue with it, especially if I wasn't afforded the same opportunity to lead the group in my religion's prayer.
The best solution would be to keep a group prayer completely separate from government activity. If that's not okay with some folks, then I see nothing wrong with a good old non-denominational moment of silence. Anything more than that means you have to allow all to be represented...even the Satanists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike
No public funds are being expended by allowing these people to say a simple prayer.
It does recognize that people of faith have a place in the public square, as U.S. law and history recognize. I have not heard anyone declare that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's stirring, Biblically-based pronouncements on the rights of man be removed from plaques on monuments in public places due to their religious component, nor do I think people are demanding that children in public schools should not be required to memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains the phrase "that this nation, under God..."
How fragile are the egos of disbelievers and secularists that such statements discombobulate them so?
I don't think anyone is getting discombobulated except a handful of hardcore Christians who are objecting to the Satanists leading the prayer. Seems to me that most others are either snickering quietly to themselves or simply rolling their eyes and moving on.
Yes. It turns out the the extremist voting block in Arizona has grown unfortunately and they show up 100% at the election. This gives them a disproportional influence on the state government and legislature. They vote for Sheriff Joe, for example, and that's enough to push him through every time. He has I think 85%+ vote from Sun City, for example. Similar situation in Prescott. The rest of the populace is much more moderate but does not vote nearly as much. That's why we're more or less controlled by the radical right wing in AZ. This problem is compounded in the Republican primaries.
So get out the vote and organize your side. As the French saying goes, he who does not show up for a vote is automatically wrong. Don't blame the other side because they are more passionate and organized than you are. That's not a "disproportionate influence," it just means your side is more lazy.
Or, move to a place where your end of the political spectrum is more active.
They should recite this simple, non-offensive prayer asking for God's guidance on their own time. If they choose to lead a group in said prayer as part of a government proceeding, then yes...they are forcing their belief system on me. Do I care personally? Not really. But were I a devout Hebrew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Satanist, I might have an issue with it, especially if I wasn't afforded the same opportunity to lead the group in my religion's prayer.
The best solution would be to keep a group prayer completely separate from government activity. If that's not okay with some folks, then I see nothing wrong with a good old non-denominational moment of silence. Anything more than that means you have to allow all to be represented...even the Satanists.
See the above. If that's what it takes, let them say their "prayer" and move on, since it's just a political stunt. We have no need to satisfy their end goal or yours. If you are unhappy with the custom of prayer and it hurts your feelings, start a petition to ban it. See how far it gets, maybe you're right. Nowadays we have fostered a culture of hurt feelings and demands for safe space where one will not be "triggered" by such things as public prayer, so you may be part of a new majority.
See the above. If that's what it takes, let them say their "prayer" and move on, since it's just a political stunt. We have no need to satisfy their end goal or yours. If you are unhappy with the custom of prayer and it hurts your feelings, start a petition to ban it. See how far it gets, maybe you're right. Nowadays we have fostered a culture of hurt feelings and demands for safe space where one will not be "triggered" by such things as public prayer, so you may be part of a new majority.
It has nothing to do with hurt feelings and while I fall into the category of those who are mildly amused by this stunt, I have no end goal that needs to be satisfied. My only issue is when religious process and public process overlap.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not religious by any means, but I fully acknowledge that religion can be a very powerful force for people to do good in the world. If a moral compass rooted in a religious belief system helps an individual be a better person, I'm all in favor of that. But religion of all types has also been the justification behind carrying out wars, oppressing minority groups, and ruining tens and maybe even hundreds of millions of individual lives throughout human history. Like many things, religion can be corrupted and misused to further an end that is often not good for anyone besides the ones in charge.
You may say we're just talking about a prayer at the beginning of a city council meeting, and you'd be right about that. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a huge deal on it's own. But the danger is when the prayer becomes the basis for the entire proceeding, and the proceeding becomes a means to exclude from the governmental process anyone who disagrees with the prayer. That's how systemic suppression of a minority group or a minority religion begins. We have an obligation as a country founded on principals of equal opportunity and equal rights for all to never let it get to that point, and the best way to do that is to keep church and state separate.
Of course in 2016 America, we don't find ourselves in the midst of a religiously oppressive state, but it can be a shorter walk to get there than we think. Look no further than the vitriol allegedly spewed in the name of Christian family values by several in the Republican presidential field as an example of why it's important to remain vigilant.
So get out the vote and organize your side. As the French saying goes, he who does not show up for a vote is automatically wrong. Don't blame the other side because they are more passionate and organized than you are. That's not a "disproportionate influence," it just means your side is more lazy.
Or, move to a place where your end of the political spectrum is more active.
They sure have been good at taking over the formerly libertarian AZ GOP into an extremist group that would make the Taliban / ISIL proud.
The statement in bold basically describes the majority of prayers ever uttered by Christian evangelical preachers. IMO, all religions engage in hate speech and none of it has any place in an official government setting.
I don't remember any invocation that could be considered hate speech. Not to say those same religions may use what many consider hate speech, but I haven't heard it in used these circumstances.
So get out the vote and organize your side. As the French saying goes, he who does not show up for a vote is automatically wrong. Don't blame the other side because they are more passionate and organized than you are. That's not a "disproportionate influence," it just means your side is more lazy.
Or, move to a place where your end of the political spectrum is more active.
The entire concept of separating church from government means that religions don't have the right to oust non believers. They don't have the right to impose their views on the entire population, even if they have a 99% majority. "Just move if you don't like it" isn't an acceptable answer or a solution to religions trying to insinuate their views into government. They don't get to do that, just like a majority of xyz state doesn't have a right to re-institute slavery.
Constitutional protections aren't subject to majority vote.
Just move if *you* don't like it.
I don't need to indulge your (irrational) need to worship sky-beings in America at public meetings.
But as you recognize, the U.S. Congress actually employs a religious leader as the Chaplain of Congress, and pays him with public funds, just as the Armed Forces employs religious leaders as chaplains and pays them a wage and allows them to put themselves in harm's way while providing religious services to government employees.
SCOTUS, who gets the last say in this matter, says this is all constitutional. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, they narrowed that to say that there is nothing wrong with prayer before a public meeting as long as they weren't restricted to all Christian or Judaeo-Christian prayers (which, the Phoenix City Council has not, historically - I have been present at a meeting where a Native American prayer was made.)
See this is what I have problems with----public funds paying for chaplains and other religious services. Religion of any kind doesn't belong in government affairs especially when public taxes are used. Any real conservative touting fiscal prudence should be outraged over this.
Worship, pray, bow, kneel, or chant all ya want on your own time but don't use public funds or valuable time for religious indoctrination.
Of course in 2016 America, we don't find ourselves in the midst of a religiously oppressive state, but it can be a shorter walk to get there than we think. Look no further than the vitriol allegedly spewed in the name of Christian family values by several in the Republican presidential field as an example of why it's important to remain vigilant.
I support strong family values and I'm a republican but I totally concur with you on this point.
For me it's really heartbreaking to see my party not only embrace all this religious hoo-hah, but use religion as a political pressure point. A person's religion is personal, it shouldn't be a political issue or part of any public agenda.
I call upon the self-described christians or anyone of any religious faith that believes in a deity to provide tangible, physical, or scientific proof of such an existence other than quoting bible verses.
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.
