 |
|
|
|
November 6th, 2013
12:18 PM ET
Let us pray? Supreme Court divided on God in governmentBy Bill Mears and Daniel Burke, CNN WASHINGTON (CNN) - Should prayers to God open government meetings? That's the controversial question a divided Supreme Court debated on Wednesday. At oral arguments about whether public prayers at a New York town's board meetings are permissible, the high court took a broad look at the country's church-state history and even the Supreme Court's own traditions. Two local women sued officials in Greece, New York, objecting that monthly Town Board public sessions have opened with invocations they say have been overwhelmingly Christian. But the case's implications extend far beyond upstate New York and could have widespread consequences, according to constitutional scholars. "This is going to affect communities across the country," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. The frequent court battles over public prayers, Ten Commandment memorials and holiday displays might strike some Americans as silly, but they touch on deep questions about national identity to reach back to the Founding Fathers, Haynes said. "It's a long struggle in our country about self-definition and what our country was founded to be. That's why we keep circling back to these emotional and highly divisive questions." At Wednesday's oral arguments, the court's conservative majority appeared to have the votes to allow the public prayers to continue in some form, but both sides expressed concerns about the level of judicial and government oversight over prayers presented by members of a particular faith. "We are a very religiously diverse country," said Justice Samuel Alito, who worried about the town officials setting up binding guidelines. "All should be treated equally. So I can't see how you can compose a prayer that is acceptable to all these" religions. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried about the effect on local citizens who choose not to stand and bow their heads when asked during a public prayer. "You think any of those people wouldn't feel coerced to stand?" MORE ON CNN: Atheist gets her day at the Supreme Court The high court began its public session Wednesday as it has for decades, with the marshal invoking a traditional statement that ends, "God save the United States and this honorable court." The town outside Rochester began allowing prayers to start its meetings in 1999, after years of having a moment of silence. Co-plaintiffs Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway challenged the revised policy, saying officials repeatedly ignored their requests to modify or eliminate the practice, or at least make it more inclusive. "It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens said. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate." The town of about 94,000 residents counters that after hearing concerns from the two women and others, it sought diverse voices, including a Wiccan priestess, to offer invocations. Officials said they do not review the content of the remarks, nor censor any language. "The faith of the prayer-giver does not matter at all," said John Auberger, Greece's board supervisor, who began the practice shortly after taking office 1998. "We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings." A federal appeals court in New York found the board's policy to be an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution's establishment clause, which forbids any government "endorsement" of religion. Those judges said it had the effect of "affiliating the town with Christianity." Congress and state legislatures regularly open their sessions with prayers. One question before the Supreme Court is whether local government bodies are different, in that there might be more active involvement with local citizens, who may want to personally petition the town in zoning, tax, and other matters. MORE ON CNN: Town prayers need less Jesus, more Krishna Justice Elena Kagan explored the limits of permissible government action by using the Supreme Court as an example. She asked whether the court could suddenly invite a Christian minister to invoke the following prayer, inside the ornate marbled courtroom: "We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross." "Would that be permissible?" asked Kagan. Attorney Thomas Hungar, attorney for the town of Greece, suggested courts were different, and that the national legislature had had similar prayers since the nation's founding. "Whatever line might be drawn between nonlegislative bodies and legislative bodies," Hungar said, "it would be incongruous, if Congress could have legislative prayers and the states couldn't." But the lawyer for the plaintiffs, supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said unlike legislatures, Greece had no official policy on prayers. "The policy should give guidelines to chaplains that say, 'Stay away from points in which believers are known to disagree,'" said Douglas Laycock, who represented the two women objecting to the prayers. "And we think the town should do what it can to ameliorate coercion. It should tell the clergy: 'Don't ask people to physically participate.' That's the most important thing." But some justices on the high court expressed doubts about the extent to which lawmakers - and later courts - should advise various faiths about what to say, and parse what is sectarian or not. "Give me an example of a prayer that is acceptable to all of the groups that I mentioned," said Alito, whose list included Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. When Laycock suggested something like, "The prayers to the almighty, prayers to the creator," Alito and others were unconvinced, saying polytheists might object. "What about devil worshippers?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, bringing laughter to the courtroom. "Well, if devil worshippers believe the devil is the almighty, they might be OK with it," responded Laycock, smiling. "Who was supposed to make these determinations? Is there supposed to be an officer of the town council that will review?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts. "Do prayers have to be reviewed for his approval in advance?" Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may prove to be the swing vote in his petition, was especially vocal. "It just seems to me that enforcing that standard involves the state very heavily in the censorship and the approval or disapproval of prayers," he said. "I'm serious about this. This involves government very heavily in religion." He also suggested small towns deserve as much right to allow a brief prayer in public sessions as federal and state bodies. "In a way it sounds quite elitist to say, 'Well, now, we can do this in Washington and Sacramento and Austin, Texas, but you people up there in Greece can't do that.'" Several members of Congress were in attendance at the argument, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida. "Every day before the Senate meets, the Senate chaplain comes out and gives a prayer, and that's important to us," Rubio told CNN just after arguments ended. "It's part of our country's tradition; it's also our constitutional right, to be able to exercise that. And I thought it was important to defend that here today." Nearly 120 members of Congress, mostly Republicans, along with 18 state attorneys general, have filed supporting legal briefs backing the city. The Obama administration is doing the same. Stephens and Galloway, the two plaintiffs, said they have faced harassment from their community and even vandalism of their property. "The pastors face the people (in the meetings), they don't face the town government, so it's like they're praying over us," Galloway told CNN after the argument. "When they all stood and I sat, and I have a hundred eyes looking at me, and questioning what's going on, they think I'm being disrespectful. It does put a lot of pressure on you and it makes you very uncomfortable. It singles you out, and that shouldn't be in my town government, and it shouldn't be anywhere." The high court has generally taken a case-by-case approach on determining just when the state intrudes unconstitutionally into religion, while generally allowing faith to be acknowledged in a limited basis in public forums. "In God We Trust" remains on currency; the Pledge of Allegiance and oaths of office mention a divine creator; and menorah and crèche displays are permitted in local parks. But the justices acknowledge the tricky line they must walk - politically, socially and legally - when deciding church-state cases. "It's hard because the (Supreme) Court lays down these rules, and everybody thinks that the court is being hostile to religion, and people get unhappy and angry and agitated," said Kagan near the end of Wednesday's oral arguments. "Part of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multireligious society in a peaceful and harmonious way. And every time the court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better." The case is Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway (12-696). A ruling is expected by early summer. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
My question is, if we have to make a complete black and white separation, will government employees scream bloody murder when they are no longer given Christmas off?
christmas has become a secular gift giving holiday where time is spent with family and friends. so i doubt xmas will stop being a holiday in this country. no religion needed.
Very true, it wasn't even a Christian holiday to begin with.
In fact, most historians believe that Jesus was born in June or July. Christmas became a Christian celebration in order to incorporate pagan religions that had already had holidays around Christmas time.
Exactly right. The tree and wreaths were used during the celebrations, the church incorporated their religion into the holiday, incorporating their religion into an existing celebration..
just like they did with easter. It is a right of spring, an expression of fertility, which is why rabbits chicks and eggs are symbols of the holiday...the christians tried to take over the holiday, but those ancient symbols still remain.
No, no, no... they can't have it both ways. Christmas is religious-based, whether from Jesus's birth or Celtic pagans – whatever. Complete separation is complete separation. Don't get me wrong – I'm for the copmlete separation. I'm okay with all government employees working on Christmas, it won't affect me.
I still don't understand why the government recognizes a holiday from a specific religion just because in this country a majority happen to believe one version or another of the "same" religion.
But, if we insist on our government offering that day as a holiday, they should also have to offer the Solstice as a holiday as well.
Just to help you understand why the government recognizes a holiday from a specific religion just because in this country a majority happen to believe one version or another of the "same" religion.
The government recognizes a holiday from a specific religion just because in this country a majority happen to believe one version or another of the "same" religion. That's why the government recognizes a holiday from a specific religion. And rightfully so.
Wish I could explain to you why you're wrong, but that would require you understanding the First Amendment.
The bible says you shouldn't take a tree from the woods make it stationary and decorate it.....why? Because it's a pagan holiday. They were losing the battle and to boost attendance they created Christmas. It used to be just mass you go to on Christmas, but a bunch of unrelated things have been attached to it.
@Voice,
Every week (52 times per year) in English-speaking places we have:
Tuesday = Tiu's day (Norse god)
Wednesday = Woden's day (Norse god)
Thursday = Thor's day (Norse god)
Friday = Frigga's day (Norse goddess)
Saturday = Saturn's day (Roman god)
And every year:
January = in honor of Janus (Roman god)
February = Roman purification rite, februa
March = in honor of Mars (Roman god)
April = in honor of Aphrodite (Greek goddess)
May = in honor of Maia (Roman goddess)
June = in honor of Juno (Roman goddess)
Christmas has become just another one of those appellations which had its roots in mythology.
Though the days use their names, it wasn't in sacred celebration – it was a naming convention. It's a bit different.
Even if it was based on religious celebrations, a large number of participants these days are enjoying it in a purely manner. Just about every culture has festivals of some kind for the Harvest (Halloween/Thanksgiving), Solstice (Christmas/Yule/Hannaka) and Equinox (Easter) so I don't have any problem with keeping those around. But answer me this – why the heck do we have Columbus day? The guy didn't even set foot on America and died thinking he'd gone to the East Indies 4 times! Now that's a holiday we could chuck and I wouldn't mind.
As I see it – when you have a day that the majority of your employees want off, it makes sense for that to be a holiday – not recognizing one religion, just recognizing reality. Christmas is indeed a secular holiday, as well as a religious one. I'm an atheist, and I want Christmas off too.
I like the compromise of calling it Winter holiday – even while we all know how and why the date is chosen, it is a way of saying that this is not only for those who celebrate Christmas.
Call it winter break like most schools do.
The prayer from the Black Mass before every meeting.
Im bring a offering plate to the next meeting, watch how many quit coming.
The moment of silence seems like the perfect solution. Why does there have to be open, group prayer? Their gods won't hear a silent, personal prayer? It's all about control.
scredly,
There is no reason for a moment of silence. If Christians can't take time outside to pray, then maybe they should stay home and pray if it's that important.
It's even more hypocritical than that – they want validation of their faith from others by assuming everybody in the room is simply okay with a group prayer...yet they don't want government interference in their religious beliefs!
Why though? What is the purpose of a moment of silence other than wasting time? If I want to reflect on something, I'll do it in class or while I'm doing something else. I don't need silence for that and those that do shouldn't get it just because. Go to the bathroom if you want quiet.
And according to the article, until 1999, they just had a moment of silence.
The change is to try to push more religion. Silence is a nice thing – it can be a moment to organize your thoughts, to pray, just to breathe.
Should we all pray during business meetings?
Maybe all NFL teams should drop to their knees before each play, pray for 2-3 minutes, then run the play?
I like this 'lets pray everywhere' game. Government should mandate that all people must stop to pray before crossing the street. Arrest them if they don't.
For a more accurate comparison, that scenario would have to involve a religious person being offended by the fact that you didn't pray before crossing the street before you could be arrested. 🙂
That is in no way comparable to what's going on here. It's not right that non-religious people have to endure a religious prayer to participate in their local government. I don't see why some people can't grasp this. No one is saying you can't pray if you want to, just that you can't make it part of a government meeting!
Make the men sing "Mary had a little lamb" in falsetto voices whenever they get angry, or else make them buy the most expensive health insurance unless they interrupt town meetings by singing operettas 5 days a week. I mean, after all, since there is nothing else to do.
If it's Open Expression Time, I could get behind that. An interpretive dance would be nice.
Should people that doen't believe in God be forced to use government printed money with "In God We Trust" on it? I say hell no. Effective immediately, all citizens of the U.S. that don't believe in God or are offended by God, etc. should cease using money that is printed with God on it. Show your support, put your money where your mouth is!
I'm fine with not using that form of government currency...but as it is government currency, the government should have to print a separate form of currency for each version of "god", and a version for no "god" for each individual group.
Which is why it's unacceptable to have that phrase on our currency – it invokes "god" without specifying which one. Better to not invoke "god" at all to show that the government does not endorse one over the other.
I simply modify every bill I use, by inking over the lie.
I simply correct the spelling of "Dog"...
IGWT,
The mostly-Christian men who founded our nation and created the first money didn't want God mentioned on it.
"Mind Your Business" was the one of the original mottos on the coins I believe. Gotta love Ben Franklin.
All my transactions are electronic. Checkmate, sucka.
IGWT,
1. Your Jesus character would have a fit at seeing his name on money.
2. We should take a cue from Benjamin Franklin, who designed one of the first U.S. coins, the Fugio Cent, which was inscribed with "Mind Your Business" (no mention of any god, btw). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_Cent
Some people do just that wiseguy. It's called using a credit card, debit card and even checks ...which move US currency around without a hint of your false God. money is dirty anyways, your saviour jesus would probably burn the US currency if he had a chance!
My goodness there is a lot of anger here. I use debit cards, not credit cards because they build a false sense of security and a lot of people end up living beyond their means. I'm not sure my savior would burn today's currency. If you may have heard or read that he still paid taxes and told a Pharisees to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is his (paraphrasing). Besides, shortly the value of the paper currency is doomed to fail soon and we'll all be getting paid by ones and zeros! Unless of course some slick Christian code writer puts a God parity bit in the code! LOL
I just want to say to you Atheist out there that you, whether you want to believe it or not, are doing God's work! Thank you, from the bottom of my heart!! Yes you are, and I'm not being sarcastic. What I've learned from listening to some of you is that you like to teach everyone to stop looking up and to look inward for answers, solutions for solving our problems in society, and even look to science etc. You could not have said it better! I believe along with you on that matter, but I also continue with, that God wants us to do the same, and use these gifts, talents, knowledge, academics, skills that we have first! Then, where all that ends, for me as a believer, is where God begins. I walk by faith then, and not by sight. I believe God is no dummy. I believe he wants the Christians (and probably all other followers) to do due diligence with the information we have and exhaust those efforts before calling on him. That said I appreciate you all for that significant life lesson. I and my faith in God have increased thanks to the Atheist!!
IGWT,
" I believe God is no dummy."
So, did this "God" character actually TELL Moses to tell his peeps that the way find out if a wife had been unfaithful was to have her drink some magic water and if her belly swelled and her thigh rotted, she was guilty? –Numbers 5
And that's just one example of either this "God" being stupid or of Moses making stuff up.
Sir or Madam, I am sure you have a lot of pent up anger and I can guess that you get some of it out on blogs that may even mention God, etc. But, going back and forth about my beliefs and your beliefs or non-beliefs is really pointless. Debating whether God exists or not, also very pointless...at least between a believer and a non-believer. We've made our choices, right? I'm good with yours, no anger here, no discontent, no hatred, I'm not offended, not hurt, not walking around with hatred in my heart for you. In fact, I'm just being logical in that (and you can laugh) this "lie" has been carried out for centuries upon centuries of generations of people. Whole countries have based their entire governmental system on Christianity or belief in God. So, so very many books have been written about God, and buildings have been erected to worship God. So, little old neither you nor little old me could possibly hold the key to completely having a bead on whether God exists or not. We all walk around with one belief or the other, either we believe he does exist or not. Big deal. Why so much hatred to me because of that?
I've no issue with you believing as you choose – and you're right – this is what we need to do – get out and work at solving our problems using tools that work and change the world, like science.
Kudos for a belief that works with reality. I've always thought that anyone who really believes in God, would be believing by studying reality, science, god's works in your perspective – not as much a book that has undergone a lot of translation and adaption and alteration written by men.
Susan, again I think we are in agreement. Science, science, science, I'm all for it. What some doctors, though, will tell you is when science was not able to cure something that in all reality was impossible, they too have claimed a miracle. So again, where science stops, I believe God begins. You are right, though, it is my perception only and I want to have something positive to focus on including using that positive perception to increase my knowledge and wisdom in science! Why can't we live with that? I suppose I'm more of a Coexist-type person because whether we know it or not, we are already coexisting...just not very well! LOL Religion spills into everything and to say it doesn't is ignorance, but you can't blot out or detach a person's values and beliefs out of their lives. I think too sometimes those scientists that believe in God when they reach their own academic capacity, who pray to God for answers, even if you would say from a perceptive standpoint, they are encouraged to continue pursuing whatever they are researching. Even if that perception alone drove them to press on, that doesn't seem so bad really. Well, enough said for me. I'm going to get crucified if I continue posting here. Take care everyone. Susan, I'm a human first, but with Christian perceptions!
Listen, IGWT, your original post was snide and aggressive:
" Effective immediately, all citizens of the U.S. that don't believe in God or are offended by God, etc. should cease using money that is printed with God on it. Show your support, put your money where your mouth is!"
Adopting a holier-than-thou stance now does not get you very far.
Don't mix personal opinions with Public Government policy.
That is just common sense. If someone wants to sing Gospel, or stand and swear, or do a prayer – do it outside. We don't all think alike.
I think you indirectly point out the REAL problem – religion does not allow for common sense!
Swearing is protected speech, praying is quickly approaching criminal status.
As well it should... it's a form of fraud.
The fact that the court is split shows how they are making decisions based on personal and political considerations rather than law as this court has done in many other decisions. This is simple, if you want to individually pray, sure it's your right, but organized, public prayers in government buildings....absolutely not. Separation of Church and State anyone? This should be a simple decision with all voting no public prayer....
AS soon as a few Muslim judges make a ruling based on their religion everyone will understand.
Unfortunately our congress is filled with old traditional christians that can't imagine the possibility that others don't follow their faith. If they had any integrity whatsoever, they would have voted against prayer in government functions, but they believe in it cuz mommy said so and were indoctrinated at a young impressionable age and can't resist the emotional connection to it. The sad truth why religion is still even considered today.
My question is: Why do people feel that they have to always pray in public? Are they seriously praying to God or showing how righteous they think they are? Why not pray to God silently or before your meeting. From what I remember reading God isn't that into folk who make it a habit of praying in public as he is about when they are alone.
I think it's about the self-righteousness personally. It goes back to this sense of obligation to believe in something that, if you ask me, most of them don't really believe anyway but pretend to so they don't have to go through what they know they put us Atheists through when they don't show enough religiosity in public – they get "the look".
It's like they want to make sure everybody else knows how religious they are because they need others to validate their faith for them....because, as I said, I don't think most of them really believe in it in the first place – they just don't have the courage to let their family and community know that because they don't want to be seen as an outcast in that community.
Sound familiar? This is exactly what the Atheist in this case is and has been going through simply because she doesn't want to participate in what others see as an obligation but she does not.
If you were confident in your religion, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
If they were confident in their religion, they wouldn't need it.
Do you see scientists going around trying to push everyone to believe in gravity, insisting on gravity readings here and there in public to convince others?
They're going against their religion to push these prayers in public, to be seen, like hypocrites. They do gain the reward they truely sought – to have it known by voters that they're being obnoxiously Christian and forcing prayers on others.
Yep, there are verses about how praying in public, especially deliberately having prayers out in public to be seen, is something Jesus doesn't approve of.
Matthew 6.5, IIRC.
Don't waste our tax money praying. It has been shown statistically to be ineffective in determining or altering outcomes. Are they permitted to play tiddly winks? If you want to pray do it on your own time. The only positive outcome from praying is that it makes the pray-er feel good about his or her self for doing so. Tiddly winks players feel better too, if they think they are good too.
Why not let those who want to pray before a meeting, pray. And those don't believe the same, don't pray, go get doughnuts or something. By telling a select group of people that they cannot do something because others don't agree with it, wouldn't that be against freedom in some way? If one group of people liked coffee before a meeting and the other group didn't, you wouldn't make a rule that nobody can have coffee, right?
Why not let the Catholics perform a Mass to open the City Councel Meeting?
I just know that I have atheist friends, but I am a christian. My friends wouldn't feel comfortable if I was praying around them and I understand that. But it seems as the years go by, we continue to remove God from everything piece by piece. And its not as much God being removed that concerns me, its the right that people have to act in a way that God exists. Next we will remove "In God We Trust" from our currency. Then someone will say that they shouldn't have to listen to songs about Jesus on Christmas radio stations, so we'll remove those too. Then someone will say that they have to hear worship music from a church next door to where they live, so we'll make laws on where churches can be. Everything seems so subtle, but small piece by small piece, everything related to the existence of a God is being removed from America. And as a free country that must be tolerant of everyone, all these subtle changes will seem to make sense. But who am I?
Over reaction.
The lie on our money was ADDED in the fifties, and it violated the const!tution. It is a lie, since I am one of the all inclusive we, and I do not trust in gods. Also the Pledge of Allegience was hijacked by the christians and made the pledge exclusionary, where even the PASTOR that wrote it, did not include any god reference.
No one is removing god...if he exists, he is everywhere, and cannot be removed. What needs to be removed is the practice of YOUR religion in inappropriate places like our government business, courts, publicly funded schools etc.
If a child takes a moment in school and prays quietly in their head before a test, she/he is free to do that. They cannot get up and lead the school in a prayer...that is inappropriate.
Many of us believe there are no gods, why am I being forced to acknowledge YOUR belief over mine in places that we BOTH pay for.
"in god we trust" was added to US currency in the 1950's around the same time that "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance as part of the anti-communist red scare movement, not by the founding fathers, so i would have no problem with those sayings being removed.
David, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to currency until the 1950s. Removing it would actually take us back to the norm. People don't want to "remove God" from everything; it's simply that God should never have been involved in the first place. The government is meant to be secular, separate from all religions, thereby endorsing none and offending none. Everyone has the freedom to pray to whomever they like. As religion (Christianity, specifically) continues to establish itself in government, this freedom becomes jeopardized more and more.
David,
I can't go 6 blocks in any direction without seeing a Christian message of some kind. How can you argue "god" is being taken out of our culture? When I grew up Christian and everyone I knew was Christian of some form, it was odd for anyone to push their religion at all. You didn;t hear about it...it was a personal subject that had no place in public. Now it is the opposite, Christians are clamering to show everyone just how "CHristian" they are.
Quite frankly if Christianity every got into the fabric of our gov;t, it would die a very quick death....be carefull what you ask for.
If you are going to call everyone to qiuet down and take a seat so you can have an organized prayer to your god, you have to do the same for mine.
Very well put.
This is a government business meeting. Why do you think praying a t this meeting , stopping and using some of the meeting time to practice YOUR religion?
Do you attend business meetings at your employment, and stop everyone for a prayer?...you would be fired, and rightly so.
Time and place.
We don't come to your church to discuss government business, don't bring your religious practice to our government business.
Pray privately, then attend the meeting.
If you don't crap in your living room, then why would you pray at a city council meeting?
Learn the definition of the word "ostracize" and you might be able to answer your own question.
Your coffee analogy was also quite laughable.
If you have the right to bring in a religious leader to lead in a prayer specific to your religion, do others have the same right?
Will you sit by, with you mouth closed and not feel mistreated, when atheists bring in a speaker who rails on for 10 minutes about how god doesn't exist, religions are all false and make people worship false idols, and that your beliefs are inconsistent with reality?
This sword cuts both ways. If you want to lead a government body in prayer, atheists can lead that same government body in a speech about god not existing. And if YOU don't like it, YOU can step outside and be ostracized. That's YOUR choice.
As long as the city council occasionally provides a spaghetti dinner to celebrate the FSM with everyone eating of his noodly goodness, I'm in.
"If one group of people liked coffee before a meeting and the other group didn't, you wouldn't make a rule that nobody can have coffee, right?"
One major point David seems to be missing is that currently there is a mandatory pre-meeting prayer which is what is being challenged. Your coffee example is almost accurate but you need to change the last half to "you wouldn't make a rule that everybody must have coffee, right?" Nobody is saying you can't have your pre-meeting coffee on your own time, but to force everyone to sit and wait during meeting minutes so you and your coffee crew can sip your beverages crosses the line which is exactly why this went to the Supreme court.
They had that before – a moment of silence.
That was not a problem.
Then they changed it to prayer – and not a moment for anyone who wants to, but some preacher coming up and speaking – and according to the plaintiffs, pushy stuff that blames non-Christians for the problems of the community.
"Part of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multi-religious society in a peaceful and harmonious way. And every time the court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better."
First, don't describe the goal of "maintaining a multi-religious society in a peaceful and harmonious way" as a "problem".
Second, this and the following quote from this article both imply that the main concern is about which prayers and whose prayers may or may not be sufficient or acceptable to others of other faiths....
"We accept anyone who wants to come in and volunteer to give the prayer to open up our town meetings."
...but nowhere in either of these opinions does it indicate they are showing any concern, whatsoever, for the Atheist in this case. What about the people of "no faith" who would simply prefer there not be a prayer?
The reason this is a difficult case is because of the indoctrination we all suffer as children to believe something, and feel guilty for not believing it. As adults this indoctrination precludes in many people the ability to even grasp the idea that somebody doesn't believe in any of what they do, to the point that they project their own beliefs onto us as a way to better relate or identify with us on a religious level – which simply does not work.
So once every ten meetings, they can have one without a prayer to cater to your religion.
theseconddavid,
How about every 10th meeting the atheists read poems about why "God is dead"? Okay with you?
As long as on the 11th day I can praise Satan.
166 no god(s) required !!!
RNA Controls Splicing During Gene Expression, Further Evidence of 'RNA World' Origin in Modern Life
Nov. 6, 2013 — RNA is the key functional component of spliceosomes, molecular machines that control how genes are expressed, report scientists from the University of Chicago online, Nov. 6 in Nature. The discovery establishes that RNA, not protein, is responsible for catalyzing this fundamental biological process and enriches the hypothesis that life on earth began in a world based solely on RNA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131106131944.htm
Above comment was suppose to go with this but ?
116
I suppose you can prove evolution?
suppose you walk into an electronics store and you see a supercomputer, you ask the clerk how it was made,
the clerk says: well we have this shed out back full of random unsorted computer parts, and a long time ago there was this earthquake and it shook up all of these parts and BOOM we have this computer!
you: were you there?
clerk: uh no.
you: was anyone there?
Clerk: no.
you: how do you know this?
clerk: its the only reasonable answer
you: so an earthquake made this computer?
clerk: yea!
now apply my little computer story to how complex DNA and proteins are, this was no accident, Evolution was guided by God, he made life possible.
November 7, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse | Reply
Which "God" did you have in mind? There have been so many...
Awww... you really dont get how evolution works, do you? Read up some and try again.
That would be a fallacy. Evolution wasn't just a bunch of random parts getting shook up and randomly assembling. Humans design technology. It is proven. The earth, the universe, cell structure, etc is NOT technology and you CANNOT verify any of it was designed. You can appeal to scientific ignorance or complexity all you want but you are still speculating just as badly as the young earthers. ID is creationism in disguise. Don't be fooled by lies.
People seem to get this wrong alot so let me try to give you the easiest example I can think of.
You – Evolution = Random.
Me – The main idea behind evolution is Natural Selection. SELECTION IS THE OPPOSITE OF RANDOM!
Sorry for the caps but it bugs me to no end when people do that.
Our country is more about diversity than any single religion. Religious ceremonies do not belong within the walls of government or our town hall meetings. Religion causes division. Anyone if they so choose can pray anytime they wish, just not vocalizing and expecting the entire room to participate or not. Especially since it causes a stigma unto those within the room that do not participate. This is just wrong. How many individuals do not get their voices heard due to their refusal to pray? As the judges, representatives... could be religious thus causing a conflict of interest. Religion does not belong there.
There are laws still on the books in several states that prevent any atheist from holding government office, and in Arkansas, an atheist is not allowed to testify in court.
The laws were struck down in the 60's but these laws reamin to this day.
That almost makes me want to travel to Arkansas and break the law, just to make a statement on how ridiculous they are.
Why do we need prayers in government buildings? That what churches, Synagogues, mosques etc.. are for. Also you can always pray to yourself. Why subject those that don't believe in God to your beliefs?
it is called lobbying.
Then prey in your head in the lobby, then attend the meeting.
It's this odd faith they have.
Their god requires them to pray in public, and to force others to listen, in order to exercise their faith. Not sure what religion this is, but it's common.
I know it's not Christianity – because in the Bible, Jesus says you should pray in private, in a closet, not in public in order to be seen, as the hypocrites do.
It's not a faith, it's mimicry of a faith for the purpose of political camouflage.
True religious freedom... "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, before we begin today I would like to offer Mr. Paulson as a sacrifice to Quetzalcoatl, now let's cut out his heart and roll it down the stairwell. After that we'll have coffee and doughnuts and procede with last week's minutes."
"Welcome to our sunday mass/services here at ( insert church name here)....before we begin, there is a zoning issue we need to discuss"
I hate to admit it, but I really did laugh out loud.
we are endowed by our creator, not blessed by religious gods.
Please describe the attributes of said creator, and then of the creator's creator.
That would be starting an other religion.
Apparently it's their creator who is endowed as believers keep referring to it as a "He"...
Definitely. The creator endowed me very nicely 😛
Do think all forms of expression should be allowed on all properties?
Doh, was suppose to be a reply to Fred.
White people are the only acceptable targets of ridicule and mockery these days.
It's very fashionable.
Everyone is doing it.
Whites are the new witches, and everyone is out to hunt them.
Paranoid much?
Just be happy you are not one of us.
Who are "us"?
White people.
Focus here Fred, follow the comments.
Way to race bait Fred.
This is relevant to the article?
Whaaa? You can tell what color people are through the internet? You really are magic!
why do they have to stomp out every reference to God? Are they scared of him or something? Or something.
can't fix stupid,
Pay attention. They are only talking about keeping religion out of government activities here. You aren't taking notes.
Why do you have to kiss his azz constantly, are you scared of him or something?
Scared of god? NO
Worried about unfixable people like you influencing government? YES.
What do I need to be fixed of?
Who said you needed to be fixed?
You did.
"Worried about unfixable people like you influencing government? YES."
My bad, you were probably replying to "can't fix stupid".
Do you wear mixed fibers? You should be terrified of God, then; he's sending you to hell.
So there's no freedom of expression on public property?
Fred,
Are you advocating that atheists be able to talk about why "God is dead" at government meetings?
Nice straw man you got there fred....way to knock that one down!
Prayer is not expression, it is religious ritual. As long as you don't mind me sacrificing goats to Horus and doing the chicken dance before each meeting, then I have no problem with your rituals.