Prayer in public meetings: Point/Counterpoint
Should governments hold prayers before or during public meetings?
Nothing fails like prayer in government
By Annie Laurie Gaylor
Gaylor is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Prayer at government meetings is unnecessary, inappropriate and divisive. Calling upon other elected officials and citizens to rise and pray is coercive, embarrassing and beyond the scope of county government. Supervisors, after all, are free to pray privately or to worship on their own time in their own way. They don’t need to worship on taxpayers’ time. That line between the Jeffersonian “wall of separation between church and state” is being crossed when elected officials misuse their authority to promote their personal religious views at government functions.
A government board ought not to lend its power and prestige to religion. Such governmental endorsement of religion excludes the 15 percent of the American population that is nonreligious (American Religious Identification Survey 2008), including more than 1 million Virginians.
The numbers of nonreligious are growing rapidly in this country, as shown by the Pew Forum’s survey last year finding one in five adults has no religious affiliation. We nonreligious citizens are offended, excluded and made to feel like political outsiders when our government oversteps its power to conduct or impose prayer. Since government prayer often invokes Jesus and Christianity, it also turns those of other faiths into second-class citizens.
America was founded in part by refugees seeking freedom from religion in government. They sought to escape tyrants who told them which church to support, what religious rituals to engage in, or what to believe or disbelieve. Whether to pray, whether to believe in a god who answers prayer, is an intensely personal decision protected under our First Amendment as a paramount matter of conscience.
The U.S. founders who adopted our entirely godless Constitution knew there can be no religious liberty without the freedom to dissent. If the framers of our Constitution found no need to pray when they adopted our secular Constitution, why does the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors need to pray over sewers, building permits and variances? Isn’t it a bit vain to imagine that a deity, if there is one, would be interested in the prayerful demands of supervisors anyway?
If constitutional injunctions do not impress, perhaps scriptural ones will. Christians who know their Bible are familiar with the biblical injunction of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, condemning public prayer as hypocrisy, and advising:
“Enter into thy closet and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.”
American government has always prayed
By Mathew Staver
Staver is chairman of Liberty Counsel and vice president of Liberty University.
Prayer is intricately woven into the very fabric of America. Public prayer and recognition of God in government meetings and by government officials has been a long-established practice, both before and after independence was declared.
In 1774 during the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, delegates voted to open each meeting with prayer. Ten months later, as war raged, these same men would call for a day of fasting and prayer throughout the colonies. The Second Continental Congress began with a prayer service in a Philadelphia church.
On July 9, 1776, just one day after the Declaration of Independence was first read publicly, the delegates voted unanimously for a chaplain of Congress, who immediately took the floor to offer a prayer. The first Senate resolved to hold a church service in St. Paul’s chapel immediately following the swearing in of President George Washington.
Opponents of prayer in public meetings often cry that the practice is a violation of the “separation of church and state.” But this phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Rather, Thomas Jefferson used it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
However, Jefferson also wrote another letter to William Johnson in 1823 in which he said it is important to “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” As president, Jefferson issued a proclamation to decree a day of “thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God” and included a prayer in both of his inaugural addresses.
Whenever James Madison — the father of the Constitution — would speak of an establishment of religion, he always meant it as a reference to the government giving preference to an “established” church, as Great Britain had done with the Church of England, never in reference to God, religious activities or public prayer. In 1853, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote that the framers of the First Amendment “did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators.”
Clearly the nation’s Founders never meant to remove prayer and references to God from the public square. Such a view is a distortion of the First Amendment and a denial of the principles in the nation’s birth certificate — the Declaration of Independence.
January 6, 2013 - 8:05 AM
I freely admit to being a humanist, a secularist and an agnostic and I find any religious observance during any public government meeting to be deeply offensive. There are more than 175 Christian houses of worship within a 10 mile radius of downtown Roanoke, and even more if one counts non-Christian religions. I am happy for those who wish to actively promote their religious beliefs to do so in the comfort of one of those institutions, but they have absolutely no right to try to force religious-conforming views on the rest of us in a public meeting conducting the business of government. The business of governing is to manage the resources of a community in the best interests of the majority of the members of that community. Religious observances are not part of the business of government.
Craig Coker
Vinton, VA
I don’t see how banning prayer from a government meeting can be called “freedom”. If I disagree with someone speaking at a government meeting, would it be right for me to demand they be silenced.
Maybe we should ban religious hatred from the meetings instead and celebrate the diversity of thought and speech.
Government prayer has/is/will be essential in asking GOD to guide officials in making the best decisions for the public they serve.If you are so offended during that process, you are well within your right to pray to whomever you wish.
Any public figure may spontaneously, individually pray whenever he or she cares to, whether that is at the beginning of a public meeting, or even in the middle if he or she can do so without violating the accepted rules of order. However, as soon as such prayer takes on an official tone (for example, if the audience gathered is asked to be silent or to otherwise recognize that prayer), then I think it becomes inappropriate. Asking members of the public to be silent so that members of the Board of Supervisors can pray, that is where the line is crossed.
If you are attending a public meeting and you are asked to be silent for a prayer, this is a good opportunity for civil disobedience. Do not be silent. Bring something to read aloud — the Bill of Rights, for example, the Pledge of Allegiance (the pre-McCarthy, not-yet-under-god version of course), or a secular humanist prayer of your own creation. When they ask you to be quiet, you can respond by asking whether the prayer is part of the meeting, and whether the text of the prayer will be included in the minutes of the meeting. If the answer is no, then ask why you have to be silent at that time. If they ask you to leave, do so peacefully and without resistance. You will have won because they will have acknowledged that the prayer was an official part of the meeting that required your formal recognition / participation. And this is something that I believe can be challenged.
@2 Henry, I think Ms. Gaylor means simply government sponsored/endorsed prayers. There is usually a public comment section during the meetings where people can say whatever they like (and do!). It’s sort of like the open-mic section.
In fact, we at the Secular Humanists of Roanoke (SHOR), have proposed to the supervisors they give up the agenda prayer item but instead allow prayers by invited pastors be said during the open-mic. Any threat of a lawsuit or anything like that would go away because that is considered private speech rather than government speech.
So no one is trying to demand private individual speech made in public be silenced. It’s a subtle but very important distinction. We who favor the separation of church and state are only for the silencing of government sponsored prayers, etc.
No one forces anyone to to pray at public meetings. If you don’t wish to, then simply stand or sit quietly while others do so.
I agree with Ms. Gaylor (let’s pray the sewer drains), and find it comical that the best Mr. Staver can offer for rebuttal is supposed actions from the 1700′s and 1800′s. Current laws establish guidelines for prayer during public functions, but unfortunately there are still narrow minded individuals that choose to ignore the law, and refuse to acknowledge the existence of other faiths.
If you need to pray in public, go to a house of worship and pray your heart out. Don’t forget to leave a donation!
@6 Michael, what you are suggesting is equivalent to what Ms. Gaylor said.
She’s saying, if you don’t like not-having prayers are the Supervisor’s meetings, you can always take yourself off. Your version is, if you don’t like having prayers at the Supervisor’s meetings, you can always take yourself off.
They are equivalent in function. So now what? Which side should “win”? Which approach is best for our government?
“Any public figure may spontaneously, individually pray whenever he or she cares to, whether that is at the beginning of a public meeting, or even in the middle if he or she can do so without violating the accepted rules of order. ”
So a public figure can offer spoken prayer at a meeting?. Why are we even discussing this issue then? We could add it to the open speaking time so it satisfies everyone.
#8 – The fact that people consider it “winning” is the problem, Scott.
Holding a prayer in public hurts no one. Like I said, if you don’t want to pray, then simply remain quiet while others do.
Does it hurt you to do so? Of course not. Does it hurt you if someone says “Let us pray”? Again, it does not. No one is forcing you to participate and no one is forcing religion on you.
If you as an athiest want respect, then you must also respect the wishes of others. Don’t believe in God? Fine. That’s your issue, not mine. It has no impact whatsoever on my faith.
But simply not believing in God isn’t enough. Many athiests want to force others to change their lifestyles and that’s what people are sick of.
I have several athiest friends who are quiet about it and respect others for their beliefs. To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Athiest!”
@10 Michael, you say, “I have several athiest friends who are quiet about it and respect others for their beliefs. To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Athiest!””
Turn it around a bit so it reads:
I have several believer friends who are quiet about it and respect others for their beliefs. To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Believer!”
See what I did there? I swapped atheist for believer. Now you know how I feel when believers insist they want to have prayer at public meetings/events. If being an attention whore wasn’t so important to them, they wouldn’t insist on doing it.
But notice Michael, and this is extremely important, the atheists aren’t insisting on saying at public meetings There Are No Gods. That would be the opposite of what the believers are doing. It’s not us trying to “win”. We’re asking for a tie – neutrality if you will. Not having a prayer is not the same as saying believers are wrong. Not having a prayer is not the same as saying atheists are right. It’s neutral in content and treats everyone the same.
Why wouldn’t you want your fellow citizens to be treated fairly? Unless of course you don’t. Unless you want to continue the privilege enjoyed by members of churches. Maybe that’s it. You don’t want to give up one iota of power or prestige that comes with being a member of the privileged class.
I say, insisting on State sponsored prayer is not only wrong – it’s unAmerican.
@Henry, yes, a public figure could offer a spoken individual prayer, but it would be hard to imagine a situation in which the particular agenda item under discussion would call for it.
@Michael, yes it hurts when a public official opens a meeting with “Let us pray.” The reason is because of the word “us.” It’s the same problem with “In God We Trust” as the national motto. The words “us” and “we” presume that all Americans want to join in the prayer and that all American trust God. Would it “hurt you” if they opened the meeting with, “Let US begin OUR meeting by reaffirming OUR collective belief that there is no God.” Well?
@Michael, “I have several athiest friends who are quiet about it and respect others for their beliefs.”
So it’s okay for a Christian to evangelize, but not an atheist? How about a Muslim?
Your problem (which is really the main issue here) is that you can’t see this issue from any perspective other than your own. You can’t think about how hurt you would feel if public meetings opened with an official declaration that there is no god, or with a prayer from a religion that differs from yours. The reason you can’t imagine it is because you assume that it could never happen. The Founding Fathers knew better, and that is why we have the establishment clause.
Maybe we should ban religious hatred. It has no place in our nation.
If you believe in freedom why is forcing a virtual captive audience to do your bidding freedom? I call that domination.
Why is it respectful of anyone who does not think like you do to force them to listen to you pray? If two rights meet, why does yours trump theirs? Government business should be the last place that religious favoritism is shown. Forcing people to enjoy your verbal prayer is not celebrating “the diversity of thought and speech” it is insulting it. I have no objection to a moment of silence for all diversity of thought and religious faith to exercise themselves. Why do you consider that not the best compromise?
#12 – “Would it “hurt you” if they opened the meeting with, “Let US begin OUR meeting by reaffirming OUR collective belief that there is no God.”
Since I would never attend such a meeting, it’s a moot point.
#13 – “Your problem (which is really the main issue here) is that you can’t see this issue from any perspective other than your own.”
Actually I can. I do look at it as others and my stand remains the same.
If you don’t believe in God, it doesn’t hurt you a bit for you to be quiet and allow others to pray. No one is forcing you to pray. For all I care, check your email while others do the praying.
#14 – ” If two rights meet, why does yours trump theirs?” Actually, Sandi, BOTH rights are met. Those that wish to pray can, and those that wish not to pray don’t have to.
As far as forcing them to listen to you pray, really, is it such a painful ordeal? I don’t think so, and my athiest friends tell me it’s no big deal to them.
“If you believe in freedom why is forcing a virtual captive audience to do your bidding freedom?”
So if you criticize the Republicans in this forum, aren’t you forcing a virtual captive audience to listen against their will?
Remember, GOD gave us all a freedom of choice. GOD gave those of us that have accepted it a way to go to Heaven and those that want to go to Hell are free to do so. In public meetings I pray to my self for our public leaders and I pray in JESUS name. Those that want to will continue to try to take everything they can away from Christians. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD. It will then be that the unsaved will hear depart from me you workers of iniquity I never knew you.
@17 meh…
Michael, your argument: “I have several athiest friends who are quiet about it and respect others for their beliefs. To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Athiest!”
Comment by Michael — January 6, 2013 @ 1:13 pm
That’s fine… I have several Christian friends who have no problem with myself being an Atheist. And they have respect for others beliefs. To me the Christians who are out there saying, “You must PRAY to my Greek myth Jesus the Nazarene or someone will shoot our children, or a earthquake will send California into the ocean because of all of their gays and illegal Mexicans”, well they are not only attention whores, they are hypocritical Christians, and they are insane!
Christians like you think because we Atheists are different and we think differently than the rest of you superstitious people, “Atheists” are the attention whores… whatever dude, put the Kool-Aid down and look up what tolerance really is. Jeshua forbid someone actually form their own opinion and actually voice it around you and your supposed majority. Nonbelievers are the fastest growing philosophy today… but I am sure you already know that with your Atheist friends that keep their mouth shut and all! Allah, knows they shan’t open thine mouth around you and your “faith”. Faith= believing something with absolutely no evidence. Who are we to say such crazy things as “evolution” and “free thought”. But you are right… with your books with talking snakes and donkeys, a flood story (god’s first abortion), and grown men living in fish. Pssh! Evolution is crap! Right???
I think you need to realize that just because someone thinks differently and voices said opinion, doesn’t make us wrong or “attention whores”. It makes us Americans with freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, go be a Catholic.
The reason why I don’t want people like YOU praying in our government, is because I don’t want people like YOU using The Bible, a book that should be rated XXX and R by the way, I don’t want you using that book to enforce immoral laws and unethical rules for myself and my children. I don’t want to have to clean up your religious mess if some other religion comes along trying to force my daughter to wear a burka, to tell my daughter that a man should have more rights than she. Respecting ONLY your religion means we have to exclude and alienate ALL other beliefs.
If you want to meditate to some figment of your imagination over a fear that your ancestors created, by all means go ahead. But you keep that nonsense to yourself, out of our government, and most certainly out of my children’s school… where reality, and rationality prevails over ignorance, irrationality, and personal greed.
Peace, love, and education!
My name is, Justin True, and I am a FREEDOM WHORE, have a realistic day.
Henry, is that your sweet way of saying my posts are irresistible? Thanks pal!
Michael, how can you say “To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Athiest!” without that being a tacit admission that others who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m a Christian!”?
There are even worse things than being forced to remain silent while public officials pray from the podium — the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto. “E Pluribus Unum” would have been a much stronger and more representative national motto than “In God We Trust.”
Michael @15, you seem to think that you’re taking a hands-off approach to this issue. I’ve seen several libertarian-minded people (including some atheists) take the same tack. For instance, if Christians were in the minority and atheists in the majority, you would ostensibly have no problem with Scott M.’s hypothetical ceremonial rejection of gods being affirmed at the start of every meeting. (Christians could just check their email, right?) If you would have a problem with this then it should be obvious to anyone that you’re wrong.
Otherwise, i see two basic ways to explain why this is bad policy. The first is that it is not impartial. This is about rights and representation. Yes, anyone can pray or refuse to pray any time of day, even while they’re at work. But to begin public meetings with such incantations is to endorse them, and specifically to endorse prayer over non-prayer. (And, seriously, how “painful” an “ordeal” would it be for Christians in government to pray before a meeting begins rather than after, or individually rather than in unison, as Name Withheld suggests?)
The second is that it discourages participation from those who most need to be heard. You say yourself that you would not attend public meetings that opened with a rejection of theism, but this is not, as you insist, a moot point. It illustrates that the consequences of a government endorsement of irreligion would negatively affect the participation of Christians in public policymaking. Conversely, the present endorsement of Christianity is a contributing factor to the disproportionate participation of atheists (and other non-Christians), who are already disproportionately represented because they are a scattered minority.
One might object that many prominent atheists are out there calling for these endorsements to end; but their energy would be better expended elsewhere, and many more atheists would take part in the process in other capacities, were it not for the entrenched prayermongers perpetuating this dispute.
I have read the Constitution. I am not a an expert on it but I don’t find the term “separation of church and state anywhere.” The trend today is to kick God out of schools, government, etc. Yet when tragedy happens the first comments are to pray for those involved. When a horrible event happens many ask the question where was God? The answer is God is a gentleman He will not intrude when He is not welcome. Turning away from God (the God of our forefathers) has it’s consequences. His word warns us in the Book of Proverbs, ” But you have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock at your fear. They shall they call upon me, but I will not answer, they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me.’ We have separated our God from our churches and our government and we no longer want His guidance and counsel yet He still loves us and wants us to repent. I can’t imagine supervisors starting a meeting without asking His guidance and wisdom to make the right decisions for the benefit of the people they represent! The government of our forefathers prayed in their meetings and I think it should continue today. I support the comments of Mr. Staver 100% and I am praying for Ms. Gaylor!
Fred Gerald, nice Christian theory until you consider that servants of God suffer every setback that those who refuse him do.
I think you are asking the wrong questions or looking at the issue in only one light. The fact of the matter is that all religions and denominations pray differently and however fervent and beautiful their worship is to them, it is only the same for everyone in their sanctuary, not necessarily or probably in a government or public meeting. If you and other Christians cannot be happy with a moment of silence in which to pray or reflect then you are not being God’s servants. “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” Matthew 6:5
It is not necessary, it is not required and it is not respectful of others to force your prayers onto them.
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” 1 Corinthians 10:31-32
@24 Mr. Gerald, please re-read the constitution and tell us if you find the words:
God
Jesus
Christian
Pray
Please re-read the presidential oath and tell us if it ends with the phrase “so help me god”.
Please re-read article 6 where it says, “no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.”
Please re-read the first amendment where is says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Then come back and talk to us again.
I think it is man’s projection that anyone has or anyone can “remove God” from anywhere or anyone. Is that really how you believe God works? He is only “there” if you are obedient, praying and abiding your time for Him? Not hardly! God is everywhere, in everything, with everyone.
The Bible is very clear on how we are to behave with non-believers:
“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone,” Colossians 4:5-6
Who did Jesus bring to God with ridicule? Accusation and condemnation? Who will know you are Christian by your love?
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:15
Prayer is a wonderful, comforting, cleansing and personal thing, you will never convince me that those fighting to pray their prayers publicly, especially in the activities of government are in the right.
The “separation of Church and State” is an interpretation of the First Amendment over many years of jurisprudence (and the Jefferson explanation) much like the interpretation of the Second Amendment that says ignore the militia wording. Interpretations are what they are, but the point is not so much what is legally allowed as it is what is morally and divinely allowed. It is not that we have God on our side, it is that we are on God’s side and such prayers, clearly are not. He said so: “6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.”
Matthew 6:6-14
Staver and Jr Fallwell along with their imperialist empire need to get a grip. I wont bother everyone with our constitution although that would and should suffice. A little quote from our first president “this country was in no way founded on the christian religion”. How about freedom from religious persecution, imagine that! Organized religion soothes a world torn apart by organized religion.
“Michael, how can you say “To me, the ones who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m an Athiest!” without that being a tacit admission that others who are vocal about it are nothing but attention whores. “Hey! Look at me…I’m a Christian!”?
I think Michael pretty well got nailed on that little piece of hypocrisy.
#29 – How can I say it, gdad? Easy. I think the vocal athiests are attention whores.
See? Easy.
Just like Scott constantly reminding us he’s a Communist. I think he’s simply looking for attention.
And FYI, I don’t run around telling everyone that I’m a Catholic, so your comment about hypocrisy is pretty much worthless.
Nice try, though.
Have a nice day.
Big of you to take on that Cross Michael, but my question and the repeat from Gdad did not say anything about YOUR personal hypocrisy. It was speaking directly to this issue and this argument, not what YOU personally have done.
You “think the vocal athiests are attention whores“. Many of us think the vocal Christians are attention whores, how can you see only one side of that as such? I think the hypocrisy accusation is not in BEING one of the “attention whores” it is in only seeing one side as being such.
Michael, you are an attention by calling others attention whores. Doesn’t your deity’s son or your reincarnate deity… or holy trinity… or whatever you guys are calling him these days, doesn’t he say something about, “Judge not, lest ye be judged ye self”? I am pretty sure that rule has been brainwashed thoroughly since you were a little chap. So, when you judge others on this blog or your everyday life, why are you surprised when others call out your BS?
You may not go around saying that you are a Catholic, but it surely shows when you call someone else an “Attention Whore” when if that is the case then surely you are as well. The act of you posting on this blog makes you an attention whore by your delusional definition.
I would tell you to go read your “four gospels” again, but then you might figure out that the only thing in those books worth applying to this life is the “golden rule” and all of us people trying to treat our fellow human right will be attention whores too.
Uhh, Michael, I wasn’t the one who originally posed the question. That would have been Sandi.
Now tell us, do you consider the folks who wander around preaching their religion “attention whores”? Do you call them out on it? We’ll wait for your answer.
#31 – ” Many of us think the vocal Christians are attention whores, how can you see only one side of that as such? ”
I don’t, Sandi. I agree that people who are vocal about their religion are also attention whores.
In my opinion, though, atheists tend to bring it to your attention more often.
#33 – If one of the first things out of their mouth is “I’m a (insert your favorite religious belief here), then yes, gdad, they are looking for attention.
#32 – Wow. Nice post Justin! A rant about me judging others while you judge me!
Thanks for the laugh!!
Michael, just about every one of your posts supports my earlier contention that you are completely unable to consider anything from any viewpoint other than your own. It’s kind of mystifying actually.
#37 – Cool! Thanks for your judgemental opinion, too!
Is this a great country or what???
#32 – I see you are an athiest, Justin.
Why am I not surprised?
I am genuinely laughing now, thanks Michael #36! I am not sure you get it, but it is OUR religious teaching that advises us “not to judge”. As far as I can tell, there is no dogma, or “teachings” about judging among Atheists. Maybe the “Golden Rule” Justin alluded to, but judging seems to be his to administer. How about we agree to live and let live and move on? Regardless of whom we answer to, the only person we have to answer for is ourselves.
#40 – I get it just fine, Sandi.
I just find it pretty funny how Justin lectures me on judging, then proceeds to judge me!
Gotta love this place…
And I’d be happy to “live and let live”. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people who wish to control my life and I refuse to let that happen.
Well in a nation of 307 million, we cannot “live and let live” in every situation. Too many bullies for that anyway.
Michael, judging by your reaction you really didn’t get the point I was trying to make to you, and yes, Ms. Saunders, even spelled it out for you and you missed it.
I am an Atheist, but I put my best foot forward to make an attempt to not judge anyone at all. I am the first one to admit mistake and do my best to correct them. You can live your life the way you wish, but when someone comes along and pegs you for not living up to your own standards, that is your issue not ours.
I have read many posts by Ms. Saunders and we see eye-to-eye on many things, we do not see eye-to-eye on religious affiliation, but we do agree on being tolerant of each other and learning to live among each other with peace and dignity.
I am a believer of freedom, I believe in freedom of speech. But I do not believe anyone has the right to shove their beliefs in my face whenever they want. I do not think prayer should be in our government not because I am an Atheist, but because I believe in the freedoms of every American, Christian or not.
Michael, No one is trying to control your life. You are so disillusioned with your brainwashing, you can’t tell the difference between freedom, and forced actions.
So, telling someone they are disillusioned and brainwashed is now acceptable?
Cool.
I’ll remember that.
#43 – “I am an Atheist, but I put my best foot forward to make an attempt to not judge anyone at all.”
You could have fooled me, Justin. You did a damn fine job of judging me in post #32.
Hypocrite. Look it up.
Speaking of judging, we have this one from Michael:
“#32 – I see you are an athiest, Justin.
Why am I not surprised?”
#47 – Not a judgement at all, gdad. Based on his posts, I assumed Justin was an athiest. Turns out I was right.
Am I judging him for it? Nope. Not a bit. If he wants to be an athiest, that’s fine with me.
So, nice try, gdad. Thanks for playing.
Have a nice day.
Michael, yours was the first judgement. And the tenets of your religion forbid it. You judged that the people who object do so because public prayer “forces anyone to to pray at public meetings“. I pray and I do not support public prayer at government meetings because I support separation of church and state. No one has ever or can “force” anyone else to pray. I do not doubt that it is offensive to someone of another creed or religion to have to respect a prayer offered in a denominational self-righteous vein but that is not the only reason to object to it.
You judged before Justin had even posted. You judged by saying, “Holding a prayer in public hurts no one”. If we believe in the separation of church and state, it hurts that ideal. If we are of another religion it hurts our creed if we do not pray “in the name of Jesus”.
If you as an Christian want respect, then you must also respect the wishes of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, and fellow Christians who believe in the separation of church and state and that it does not cover government led or endorsed denominational prayer. The impact on your faith is self inflicted when you refuse to do so.
Government led or endorsed prayer is not a “lifestyle”. It is a choice of action by a government. This is not an argument that extends to your home or church. It is ONLY in the realm of government function.
I pray at every moment of silence offered in any setting. I do not believe it disrespects my religious belief or that of my fellow man. Nor does it violate the separation of church and state I believe in. Forcing “your” (collective, not your’s Michael) prayer on us all does. To me, the ones who are vocal about insisting on prayer and for others to shut up about it are worse than “attention whores”. They are bullies saying, I will do as I please and you keep quiet. That is wrong.
Pretend they are trying to take your gun and then you’ll get it.
Mr. Staver may need to fact check his remarks about “President” Jefferson’s thanksgiving proclamation. When Jefferson was Governor of Virginia he did sign a proclamation in 1779, written by others, using the words quoted above. However, I cannot find this quote during his Presidency. If Mr. Staver’s assertion is correct, where did he obtain his information?
#49 – Sorry, Sandi, I disagree.
I’m not forcing my prayer on anyone. I’m giving those who wish to pray an opportunity to do so. If someone doesn’t wish to participate, then they don’t have to.
IMHO, your way of thinking is what has gotten this country into the mess it’s in.
Of course, you will never see it that way.
Have a nice day.
Michael, you are getting upset for no other reason than others pointing out the fact that you are not living by the standards you claim to live by. The religion you claim to follow, the Greek mythical figure your faith is named after said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged ye self”. You judged first, you were warned over 2000 years ago that this would happen. You judged and now you are being judged(no surprise, this is human nature by the way, and Michael proves that we as humans do not like to be judged), why are you surprised and feel the need to spit vitriol all over something you started? Not only are you being irrational, but you are not putting an intolerant face on yourself and the religion you claim to hold in such high regard.
If you want to pray, fine. Pray (meditate), on your own time. Do not waste our tax dollars on something that has no place in our government in the first place. Isn’t it enough that religion gets tax free donations and businesses? Should we also waste our time on prayer? I am sure that you and your fellow religious folk pray a few times a day. Is there a set time limit on how long your prayer lasts? Do you really feel that if we don’t pray in our schools and government, that innocent people will be murdered because your god will turn a blind eye? Or he will set the chain of events in motion so that innocent children will be murdered and the family of a gunmen will have to live with the atrocity their family member committed? Your religious leaders would have you to believe all of this craziness and more. Why? To keep you in the pews paying their bills… tax free none the less! Nothing motivates animals like fear. Realize that before you pass your judgments on to others who do not hold the same religious belief of lack of it.
Prayer is supposedly a way of using your faith, here again faith is something you believe with no proof, prayer is supposed to use supernatural abilities to get things done. I don’t pray. Why? Because I prefer to get things done on my feet with My Eyes and Mind Open. The view of the world is very limited on your knees. In my humble Atheistic opinion.
Well Michael, IMHO, your way of thinking is what has gotten this country into the mess it’s in.
Of course, you will never see it that way.
You have a nice day too.
Its only the way you think specifically Ms. Saunders… no other actions or issues that have been building up for decades. Its people like you and me who try to share our opinions and stand up for not only our rights, but the rights of the minorities of this country.
Be ashamed Ms. Saunders! Be ashamed!
Great job everyone, making this an argument about Michael rather than a grownup discussion about the actual topic.
In no uncertain terms it is indeed an argument about Michael and everyone just like him in this nation. I appreciate that you think he is alone in his POV, I just happen to disagree.
tass, just because I address, Michael, and his opinion at the beginning of my statements doesn’t mean that I am directing the argument solely at him. He happens to be attacking me and my opinion, so I address that and move on to the discussion topic. But we do appreciate you adding to your delusional interpretation of this thread.
It would have helped your complaint if you would have added something to the topic of the thread… well?
Sandy, you infer that I think Michael is alone in his POV, which I am responding to because you are wrong, instead of discussing the separation of church and state. What I think about another poster is irrelevant, but all of you are arguing with each other instead of discussing the merits. That’s how the bad guys win, by having people squabble amongst themselves (divide and conquer).
Justin. Delusional? I happen to agree wholeheartedly with you on every actual relevant point you have made about the issue. But the fact that you would call me delusional really makes me not want to engage with you on the issue.
See how it works? Make it about the issue and you may end up with more than the usual small group of posters posting their predictable arguments. Or just keep yelling at each other. That’s working.
58 – Justin is judging you and Michael (using words like delusional, disillusioned, brainwashed, etc.). He may deny it, but it is what it is.
But since he’s an atheist, he’s allowed to do that…all the while accusing Michael of being judgmental and saying how “wrong” it is for him to do so.
Classic liberal hypocrisy on display.
tass, I get your point, and it is a valid one. I was wrong in calling you delusional. Perhaps I could have worded it better.
I agree that we were going back and forth with Michael and mostly arguing semantics (as usual) but I disagree that we made “this an argument about Michael”. Michael’s POV is that of most of the people who argue for the prayer. It can’t hurt, just shut up and ignore it, just let people pray…it strikes at the heart of the debate for many. It may put you off to have it discussed in the way we generally do it around here tass, but I maintain it is precisely the same argument. Every point he makes, we bring it back to the point of the separation of church and state being the basis not the objection’s he claims.
I get what you are saying, but asking people to ignore being called “attention whores” and the hypocrisy in several of his stances is asking a lot.
Maybe we are all too quick to jump ON each other instead of INTO the discussion, but I cannot miss that you ignored his original “attention whore” insult to make him the “victim” here. Why did you choose to do that, I wonder?
Maybe we are all too quick to jump ON each other instead of INTO the discussion, but I cannot miss that you ignored his original “attention whore” insult to make him the “victim” here. Why did you choose to do that, I wonder?
First of all I don’t care one whit what names Michael or any other person in this thread want to call me. Point out hypocrisy in a civil way, sure. Public prayer=ok but public nonprayer=attention whoring? Fine, stick with that. But all this drama over name-calling is feeding the troll, Sandi Saunders. It’s a distraction from the point. I know that you will follow any distraction in pretty much any thread on the whole site wherever it goes, until it’s so far away from the issue at hand that the vast majority of readers skip the entire resulting wall of text because it goes nowhere. The same half-dozen arguers posting the same predictable pointless circular arguments day in and day out.
The more you reply with righteous indignation at people who dare hold fast to hypocritical views, the more power you give them. Nobody outside of this thread gives a damn about what Michael thinks; he can call me an attention whore, Justin can call me delusional, you can call me whatever the hell you want to call me. I don’t care because winning an argument on the internet is not what I signed up for when I read the op-eds and clicked through to the comments.
And on your second point, victim? Drama much? Nobody in this thread is a victim. I certainly didn’t call Michael a victim. It’s a thread on a blog where everyone has high-speed internet access and freedom of speech to be here, there are no victims. But the opportunity to discuss the merits of the issue at hand has been squandered, and it’s a pretty important issue IMO, so there’s that.
But go on and keep fighting the good fight day in and day out, for someday you might just win on the internet. As for me, I’m going to take my own advice now and not feed this particular troll any longer.
I feel stupid going along and reciting words ,that mean nothing to me .I know there is no god .They can worship a rock if they want to but don`t ask me to participate ….
Worshipping a rock or the sun makes more sense to me .At least you can see themand you know they are REAL….
Not everyone believes that the bible is more than a 6000 year old book of fairy tales and it is unfair to subject anyone to what should be a personal choice. Prayer has no place in public meetings.
Please work on your spelling: the word is “atheist” … not “athiest”
Thanks.
Mr. Staver is propagating a major point of confusion in this debate. A “just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators” refers to personal, spontaneous acts of conscience. When it’s an organized and mandated activity by a governing body however, then it’s or all intents and purposes an establishment of religion by that governing body. At that point, the personal conscience of anyone not subscribed to that religion, or religion in general, is infringed upon. In other words, if the legislators want to pray privately before an activity, they can. They cannot mandate and subject others to a prayer.
Those who claim the removal of mandated prayer infringes upon the legislators has the concept backwards.
Those who insist non-subscribers to the prayer just be quiet and take it miss the entire foundation of our constitution (and no, the constitution was not founded on the Christian bible).
Maybe we are all too quick to jump ON each other instead of INTO the discussion, but I cannot miss that you ignored his original “attention whore” insult to make him the “victim” here. Why did you choose to do that, I wonder?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 8, 2013 @ 3:16 pm
My name is, Justin True, and I approve this message.
I agree with your statement 100% (as usual), Ms. Saunders. We are human, we are not perfect. I am guilty of attacking the person and not the argument on occasion. But aren’t we all?
Prayer doesn’t hurt anyone. Except for i didn’t vote you into office to waste my tax dollars praying. I voted you into office to solve our problems and prayer does NOTHING to solve anyone’s problems.
Would anyone have a problem with a prayer to Satan? All must be allowed to lead prayer or none. I say none, do your praying on your own time.
Why are Christians so intolerant? Why do they insist that their particular version of the “TRUTH” must be imposed on the rest of us? Why do they always whine when they don’t get everything they want? I could go on (and on, and on, and on – but you get my point). What is wrong with these spoiled children – why can’t they just GIVE IT A REST!!!
Yes tass, it is quite clear that I am impeding substantive discussion. It is apparently what I do when I am not pretending to be a government agency. Thankfully we have heroes like you hiding in anonymity and calling me out on it. Please do offer your thoughts on “the merits of the issue at hand”. I will not revisit this thread, just so you will be unfettered by my “trolling”.
We do not elect and pay our government officials to pray to get things done. Their job is to ACT to get things done. Asking for guidance from an invisible being they cannot prove exists is the most counterproductive measure an elected official can take. And because something is deemed “traditional” does not make it constitutionally legal, or just.
Our nation is so much more diverse culturally, ethnically and religiously than it was during its founding. A generic prayer said aloud in public meetings is not representative of all people. For those of certain religious traditions, it would even be offensive. And if one were to read the New Testament, they would find that praying aloud as a group in a public place is actually considered hypocritical for a Christian. So it is interesting how it usually appears to be only the Christians who keep pressing for prayer in government meetings.
It is time to put an end to sanctioned prayer on taxpayer time, and on taxpayer property. Or at minimum, replace it with a moment of silence and reflection, something that at least can be all inclusive. Often times, doing away with tradition is called progress.
“The establishment of the chaplainship to Cong(ress) is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: the tenets of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship ag(ain)st the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.” James Madison, in memoranda from his retirement in 1819.
“…every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.
“And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are…But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…” ascribed to Jesus in Matthew 6:5-6 in “The Holy Bible” KJV, date (and authorship) debatable.
Elected/appointed officials that are unable to perform there duties without babbling to an alleged sky-monster are a waste of taxpayer’s monies and a detriment to communities they work for.
Now this is how it’s done! Like a Boss!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/07/rep-kyrsten-sinema-sworn-into-congress-without-a-bible/
In case you were wondering, newly-elected Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), the sole religiously “unaffiliated” member of Congress (but, whatever you do, don’t call her an atheist), was recently sworn in by Speaker of the House John Boehner:
…picture…
So what is that she’s swearing on? Is it a Bible?
I asked her staff and they told me it was a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Great start for the purely-symbolic “leader of the Nones” in Congress.
Matthew Staver’s discussion of the First Continental Congress is as irrelevant as the burning of witches by the religious in Boston. We follow the government with our current Constitution including the Bill of Rights, so who prayed publicly before 1791 is too early. The reasons for separation of church and state are clear, though.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thewall.html#ratification
http://www.alternet.org/story/152564
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/is-america-a-christian-nation.html
Quotes from famous Baptists: http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/quotesscs.htm
Quotes from James Madison, author of the Constitution:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm
Mr Staver, people pray for guidance and get opposite advice.
(It doesn’t work.)
The Constitution was ratified in 1788.
The population of the US in 1790 was 3,929,214.
White Europeans, Africans and American Indians formed our main ethnic groups.
Mr. Staver takes us back to this time when women were second class citizens and slavery was a “long-established” tradition and counsels us not to change the intent of our founding fathers.
In 2010 our population was over 300,000,000. Our population is larger and more ethnically diverse then at the time of ratification.
Two hundred and twenty four years after ratification it is illogical to ignore the wording of our Constitution and base ones argument for the “long-established practice” of government prayer on someone’s intent gleaned from their personal correspondence.
Apparently, Mr. Staver finds our founding fathers’ wording of the Constitution and the system for amending it wanting.
Invoking a specific deity in this context is problematic. As others have stated, I don’t understand why a moment of silence cannot be regular practice so that the individual can decide whom to pray to or better yet, whether or not he or she even wants to pray. But at the very least a moment of silence wouldn’t exclude anyone who has different views or beliefs.
When I was in high school (Brookville)many years ago, the students were called to an assembly. We had no knowledge of the subject matter but, heck, we didn’t care. Assemblies got us out of class. In the auditorium, I sat with my girlfriend at the time, one of the few Jewish students in the school and proceeded to watch as a man dressed in a cherry red suit and introduced to us as the “Pastor of Bourbon Street” preached for a half hour, during the course of which he repeated that the only way to go to heaven was to believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. My girlfriend kept muttering “I can’t believe this, I can’t believe this.” She was visibly upset. It was at that moment that I realized that religion, even the religion of the majority, has NO place in a public school that serves the entire community, some of which is not Christian of any stripe. As my girlfriend became more and more upset and embarrassed, I became upset as well. It was wrong. Her parents paid taxes to support the school system and had an expectation that while their beliefs might not be endorsed by the school system, neither would other religions be endorsed by the school. Since we weren’t informed as to the nature of the assembly, she and the other Jewish, non-Christian, and non-Protestant Christians were not given a chance to opt out. Wrong then, wrong now, in schools and other public places.
It is not about God, but about Jesus. This supposed son of God was not mentioned in the Declaration of independence nor was the term Christianity mentioned.
It is high time for Christians to stop being so hypocritical. We need to practice what we preach. Also the “establishment clause” does not mean that prayer at public functions is not legal. I don’t care who you are Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist, It doesn’t matter, each would have the freedom to pray when asked. The principle here folks is not that Christianity is bad for society of something, the issue here is that we don’t want to acknowledge God, Jehovah,exists, because to do so is to acknowledge that we are accountable to him for what we do, and that we will one day answer to him. Thus, the arguments here are not political but religious in their nature. Lastly, good arguments, for or against are great but please do not mock your opponent, by doing so you lose credibility.
@83 Mr. Joshua, take a moment to think more closely about your argument, especially in relation to this sentence:
” I don’t care who you are Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist, It doesn’t matter, each would have the freedom to pray when asked. ”
As an atheist, the problem with this is obvious to me. See if you can figure it out.
Mr. Joshua, I realize this discussion is about prayers at public meetings but a related story, pre-game prayers might shed some light. Here’s a good entry at a thoroughly Christian site about this matter.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/10/32839/