Prayer in public meetings: Point/Counterpoint rebuttals
Should governments hold prayers before or during public meetings?
History is against government prayer
By Annie Laurie Gaylor
Gaylor is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Government prayer serves no purpose other than to alienate 62 million nonreligious Americans. It is supremely pointless. Officials who wish to pray should do so on their own time, not schedule prayers on taxpayers’ time.
Members of our government possess, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, “no particle of spiritual jurisdiction.” We the people grant our representatives authority to run a secular government, not a Sunday school.
Strangely, my opponent relies on practices that predate the First Amendment separation of state and church by some 15 years. And he well knows that a long history does not make this or any other practice constitutional. Otherwise our society would be segregated and women could not vote. Thomas Paine wrote, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right,” and that’s all government prayer can claim, superficiality.
History is not on my opponent’s side. When prayer was proposed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders thought it so unimportant that they ignored the proposal — not even putting it up for a vote. Surely if the Founders did not need prayer to write the document that founded our nation, local governments can conduct their business without prayer as well.
Where will anti-religion agenda end?
By Mathew Staver
Staver is chairman of Liberty Counsel and vice president of Liberty University.
For nearly 200 years, all three branches of government upheld the First Amendment right of prayer, even in public meetings and by public officials. But even as we acknowledge the foundation upon which this nation was formed, let’s also contemplate what America would look like if organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation get their way. I have seen their future.
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully attempted to intimidate the Santa Rosa County, Fla., school district into banning employees from praying over their meals, even going so far as to try and stop an employee from asking her husband to bless the meal for a private gathering in a neighboring county. They were unsuccessful in their goal because Liberty Counsel defended the employees.
Groups such as ACLU and FFRF go after local school boards and county commissioners with threats of expensive lawsuits in hopes of laying the groundwork to eradicate all recognition of God or religious identification on public property or by government officials.
Where will it stop? Will crosses and stars of David be erased from the tombstones in military cemeteries? The ACLU has been fighting for years to remove a memorial cross. Will courts be forbidden from opening with, “God save this honorable court?” Will the president be forbidden from saying, “God bless the United States of America?”
The Declaration of Independence declares “our Creator” endowed us with unalienable rights. Will those who argue against the freedom to publicly acknowledge God want to ban this founding document? No doubt some would do just that.
Even the least religious among the Founders, Benjamin Franklin, declared “that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” Like Franklin, I think not.
January 13, 2013 - 8:02 AM
Where will it stop? Will crosses and stars of David be erased from the tombstones in military cemeteries?
Military cemeteries include more than 50 different religious symbols, including those for Islam, humanist, wicca, and atheist.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp
If there is time before public meetings to have a religious statement that includes every one of those beliefs, then go for it. If it’s just one religion & one religious text getting attention, then that is precisely the opposite of the principle of religious freedom on which this country was founded.
Well said Tass. This is the most important point. Most supporters of public prayer are only in favor of some kind of Christian version.
>Will the president be forbidden from saying, “God bless the United States of America?”
He or she should really have the decency not to say this in the first place
The “free exercise” part of the First Amendment gives private citizens, not government agencies, the right to practice their religion. The “establishment” clause, including the effects of the 14th Endearment and much case law over the last 120 years, means that government agencies cannot favor one religion over another, nor favor religion over non-religion.
Mr Staver doesn’t seem to see the difference between the personal expression of faith via a symbol on one tombstone, and the expression by a government agency favoring one religious tradition via a large symbol over an entire cemetery. The former is protected; the latter violates the First Amendment.
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.
Mr. Staver knows all about the Establishment Clause and its
interpretation over the years.His group will not pay the settlement
costs if they lose.
There is no “war on Christianity” or “war against religion.” It’s only the extreme hypocrisy of right-wing christians trying to stifle the rights of non-christian Americans while crying wolf as they falsely claim their rights are being oppressed. Heck, EVEN THEIR OWN BIBLE SAYS TO PRAY TO THEMSELVES (Matthew 6:6).
When will the lawsuits against violations of the First Amendment stop? When religious whackos finally respect the Constitution!
I am an Athiest, and my wife is Pagan. Where’s our rights? Where’s our representation?
@Tass
Graves are private. Public schools are public. Your right to wave your religious flag stops short of where it punches me in the nose. There is no place for religion in government or public schools; period.
If we leave out the Constitutional argument and concentrate only on the ethical implications of prayer at government meetings, it is clear that religious commercials or any other form of advertisements should never be a part of the function of the government. Let’s get down to the business at hand.
Maybe Mr. Staver would want to clarify that the word “creator” in the Declaration is be no means an endorsement of the trinitarian doctrine. Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration, thought the idea of the trinity only deserved ridicule (just google “Thomas Jefferson ridicule”). As for empires rising without a monotheistic God-gee, how abou the ancient Persian and Roman empires?
The Declaration of Independence DOES NOT read “our creator.” It reads “their creator.” If the writer(s) wanted it to read our creator, I’m sure they would have used the word “our.”
Using the word “their” leaves it open for anyone to believe want they want and clearly DOES NOT refer to the god of the bible. Why do people just make things up?
Mr. Staver, do you want to clarify your statement about the ACLU and Santa Rosa County, Fla.,? Staff praying over their meals? Please, integrity in our discourse improves our understanding of each others points of view, but praying over someone’s meal is not a point of contention in any of these arguments. Why try to create a false premise to make your point. Is it because your real argument is weak? The establishment clause is to protect government bullying through religious intentions. Read Mark 6 and keep your prayers private. Your manual explains it, and the constitution demands it!
Oh, I forgot to ask… You have seen WHO’S future?
Does that mean that you have had a future development revealed to you in some way? Who revealed it? Did other people besides yourself witness this revelation? Or was it for your eyes only? For what purpose?
Here’s the big question, what must I do to have great future developments revealed to ME?
I’m so embarrassed.
My earlier post should have read, “You have seen WHOSE future?”
Mr. Staver, I’d like you to show where the FFRF or the ACLU or any other such group has ever advocated that anybody should be prevented from praying or otherwise worshipping as they personally see fit while not in some way representing the government. You can’t, because it hasn’t happened. You know full well that a century of Supreme Court case law has affirmed that nobody in any government capacity may officially endorse any religion, yet you continue to maintain that you, and 75% of the American public, are discriminated against by a rank minority of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. At the same time, you maintain that the founders of this nation, who authored the document (The US Constitution) upon which your argument founders, really intended the effect of that document to be the direct opposite of what it has been, and that the very first clause of the very first amendment of that document has no effect whatsoever. You know full well that in order to maintain the freedom of religion enjoyed in this country, the government must not be involved in religion. Yet you and your ilk continue to insist that religion (specifically, yours) be injected into the government on a daily basis, thus subverting the original intent of those founders. Have you no decency, sir? Why can’t you see that your right to worship does not include using our government to indoctrinate me or my children into your religion? The only logical conclusion is that you don’t really care about religious freedom at all, and that your real agenda (and that of your rich backers) is really to repeal the establishment clause thus ending religious freedom as we know it. What next? Another inquisition? The return of the dark ages? You are free to go door to door trying to sell your religion, tout it from any soapbox, scream it from any mountaintop, but you can’t enlist the government to help you do it .The founders, including Ben Franklin, created a secular government because they did not want to duplicate the oppression of the state sponsored Church of England. You want to reinstate the very thing this nation was founded to oppose. You support the oppression of theocracy. The only way to insure freedom of religion is secular government. You are wrong.
One more thing. A lot of commenters ask why you christian theocrats seem to ignore your lord’s injunctions against public prayer in Matthew 6:5-6, yet there’s never a reply. Why is that?
Here is a link to the ACLU website, where it addresses myths and lies about the Santa Rosa County case Mr. Staver refers to.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/does-v-santa-rosa-county-school-district-top-5-myths-and-facts
I thought that “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor” was one of those 10 commandments Mr. Staver is so fond of? In that case, shouldn’t he be more honest in his claims?
For those interested in defending the separation of Church and State and attacking Mr. Staver, I need to point out, making logical and/or legal arguments won’t work because Mr. Staver is NOT interested in the truth or objectivity.
He’s got an ideology he wants to push. This is a political argument as much as anything. Therefore, he’s simply blowing a dog-whistle to rally like minded people. It’s a way of defining the in-group and the out-group.
Anyone that writes here as if Mr. Staver would care what you think; well, you’re wasting your time.
A better use of your time would be to address the people who do read the comments but are wavering; those who may lean towards Mr. Staver’s viewpoint but are open to learning and changing their minds.
This is the kind of malarkey that the vice president of a Christian university put out? Glad my kids aren’t there.
“Where will anti-religion agenda end?” – huh?… Oh, you must mean… When do people stop fighting for others rights as addressed in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution? Well, hopefully never, because obviously you (Matthew Staver) don’t care about everyone’s rights and somebody else with a reasonable mind must do it.
The Declaration of Independence declares “our Creator” endowed us with unalienable rights.” – Correct, but it’s not the U.S. Constitution. But since the subject is brought up, I will remind you that “our creator” does not equal “christian god”. In fact, “our creator” can range anywhere from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to numerous spiritual beings in Myth History, or from the physical creator (the Earth Environment itself) to acknowledging that our parents also create and pass on the idea of those unalienable rights. I’m sorry, but “our creator” is actually a secular choice of words. Also, if one wanted to, you could anthropomorphize the theory of evolution and call that your creator which automatically endows you with unalienable rights because it aided in the development of your brain to think about and practice liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
“Benjamin Franklin, declared “that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” Like Franklin, I think not.” – First of all, Franklin was a Deist, and to put it bluntly, he was considered an infidel in the eyes of christianity because he did not believe the same as they do. And, secondly, please explain the atheist empire of China? I’m sure it’s just a figment of my imagination… lol
would the religious like our country to look like other countries whose religious leaders are their political leaders? SEE THE FUTURE….rolled out posters 20 feet high hanging off balustrades of the face of our leader imposing on us to follow him……times of the day where you must stop what you are doing, take out your prayer object, and fall to your position upon it and pray to your leader/deity. wherever and whatever the whim of the leader says to do you must do -or be punished, shunned, or outed. I can go on and on…and be more and more angry and nauseous. So.. the Puritans should have kept going back when they were stopped in their vector? That arrow would have shattered our country in pieces. The first amendment saved us from a future of cow-towing and bowing to the ruling party in position of authority. Keep your vision of the future in your own fairy book! I’ll take FREEDOM.
if Mr. Stavers comments are so right on, why isn’t there any comments endorcing his view on this blog?
@20 John, his viewed being right or wrong are irrelevant. Defending them here makes no difference.
He’s got the political muscle to push his agenda. It comes from money, court decisions, political action, etc.
If we who see the need and benefits to keeping church/state separate don’t “practice what we preach” at the ballot box, we deserve to have our behinds handed to us.
Uh, right, Scott (16). I never imagined he would bother to read my post or care about its content, or that he cares what I think. However, I think the people who read this blog might. And I think most of them got that. Thanks for clarifying, though.