2009.01.09
Discuss Friday's commentary and letters
The buck stops with city council
Ron Herring
Herring, of Roanoke, is the retired CEO of Lutheran Family Services of Virginia and adjunct faculty at Radford University.
Past and current consideration by city management and city council regarding planning for the Market Building reminds me of an observation often made about organizations having difficulty with decision making. It's called the paralysis of analysis. In the case of Roanoke, this can also be referred to as deja vu, á la Victory Stadium, Countryside Golf Course, a city amphitheater, etc.
Read more.
Geraldo report was anything but fair and balanced
Charles L. Fallis
Fallis is the president of Families and Friends United for Central Virginia Training Center in Salem.
Fox News, the self-declared "fair and balanced" cable news service, regularly produces "Geraldo at Large," which airs on Saturday evenings. Many will recall that Geraldo Rivera, host of the show, achieved initial fame nearly two score years ago with his investigative work in New York leading to the closing of Willowbrook, an intermediate care facility for intellectually disabled citizens. Perhaps his current predisposition to close all such facilities, regardless of the quality and need of the service they provide, is attributable to that long-ago experience.
Read more.
Read Friday's letters here.
RSS feed 
In his letter "Look to Jesus' word on public prayer", Dan Smith says that Christians should pray in their closet. That is very true. If Dan wants to do that, I think he would in good standing with the Lord.
But if he uses the power of the State to demand that everyone do that (even non-Christians), he is opposing the Constitutional right to free speech.
Comment by Henry — January 9, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Henry,
No one is demanding that everyone who prays do so in a closet. The only demands are on public officials when they speak in their official capacity. When you are acting as an agent of the state, you cannot promote a particular religion. It's a simple concept, and I'm baffled that so many people are having such a hard time understanding it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 9, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Agree wholeheartedly with the editorial - it's simply unconstitutional what has been happening with the invocation. Go to a moment of silence or drop the thing entirely.
Comment by Kurt — January 9, 2009 @ 9:14 am
That's just it. Mentioning the word "Jesus" does not "promote" a certain religion. If a chaplain prays in the name of Allah somewhere, it doesn't mean we are all Muslims now. It's just some guy giving a speech. But you don't like what is in the speech so you want him silenced by the power of The State. You guys have just become obsessed with clamping down on a certain type of normally accepted speech. This is like a game.
After you silence Christian speech, what comes next? Criticism of the President? If a public official criticizes the President, doesn't that promote a certain party?
A moment of silence. How appropriate for a media outlet to call for state-imposed silence.
Comment by Henry — January 9, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Henry - we have freedom of religion and sepetartion of church and state here. And yes a state official in a state sponsored gathering or whatever praying to Jesus promotes religions that believe and follow Jesus but not any other...so yes it does promote a certain religion.
Second, if a state official prayed to Allah I'm sure people would be outraged...I seem to remember many people against a certain black man because he could possibly be Muslim....
Third, criticism of the President is very different and promoting a politcal party is very different than promoting religion.
Fourth, a moment of silence is very appropriate...everyone can pray to whoever they want to, or those who aren't religious can just sit there and not have other religions imposed on them. What's wrong with that? Why would you be ok with a state official making everyone in the room stop for a christian prayer, why aren't you ok with a moment of silence?
Comment by HCS — January 9, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Outrage is OK. State-imposed suppression is not.
Comment by Henry — January 9, 2009 @ 11:17 am
ok Henry...I don't think you've really addressed any of my points.
Comment by HCS — January 9, 2009 @ 11:22 am
I think anyone that wants to prey before the opening of a meeting needs to pray, and this should be his prayer so we dont offend anyone.
Dear Lord please help ME and ONLY ME do what is best for my christen constitents.
Give ME the strenghth to get thru the day from those that
want to silence you and do things on THEIR own.
Help me sit thru this council meeting and direct ME as you will.
As for the rest of the ones in the room.
Well to hell with them as that is their destination for throwing you out the dooranyway.
In Jesus Name.
AMEN
Comment by HERB KREBS — January 9, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
The non-believers and Jesus Christ haters will find out how wrong you are at your day of judgment.
God help you.
Comment by AJ — January 9, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Ok, we are not here for you guys to tell people where they are going after they die. We are here to discuss why state officials shouldn't be promoting one religion over another in a state santioned setting.
Herb and AJ, you guys have made it unbelieveably clear why this can be so offensive. I don't want the promotion of ANY religion by state officials not simply Christianity. How would you react if a public official stood before a public meeting and prayed a Muslim prayer...I bet you would be offended wouldn't you...because that is not your God or your religion. People are not against praying to God...people are against public official supporting one religion over another while performing their public duties.
Comment by HCS — January 9, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
On another note AJ and Herb, you assume that I am not Christian when in reality I was raised in a Christian home and church...I just am open minded enough to realize that there are others out there who follow other religions.
Comment by HCS — January 9, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
I don't know if they hate Jesus. They hate free speech though.
HCS
Sorry but forced silence is not a good enough form of free speech for me.
Comment by Henry — January 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
You like forced religion?
Comment by HCS — January 9, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
What gets me is that no one is preventing anyone from praying. Anyone can pray at any time of the day or night in any place day or night. It's called silent prayer and quite frankly, religion should be a very personal and private thing between a person and their diety.
Open performance of religion seems to be more for show that for real benefit about 90% of the time.
A quite moment of meditation is perfectly acceptable.
Comment by Will — January 9, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Anyone have a problem with me coming to your church on Sunday and talking about transportation, schools, budget issues, local government items? You know, free speech should apply. Or do you think it would be inappropriate? I know you're there for religion, but I want to talk about other issues. After all, it's my right. Right?
Comment by Blue John — January 9, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Very good Blue John!
Comment by Will — January 9, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Will, I think you make a more persuasive argument when you stick to the Constitutional issues. Demanding that people keep their deeply held beliefs to themselves and only express them silently because others might be offended sounds frighteningly close to saying the religious folks should just "stay in the closet." That mindset has implications that reach far beyond religion.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 9, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Yeah C Ramsey, Fascist Germany, Communist Russia, and many other examples. If you want FREE speech for yourself, respect even your opponents right to such. If not you are with your brothers Hitler, Stalin and the others who try to stop free speech. It is for ALL not just you!
Comment by Bill McClure — January 10, 2009 @ 1:24 am
John
We talk about those things in church. But you guys are ignoring the obvious to argue the inane. The problem is not religion. It's free speech. The State is using its power to suppress speech because it doesn't like the content. It's going to extremist measures to keep the name of Jesus from being used in a positive manner. Anyone can belittle Jesus in that assembly but no one will be allowed to use His name in a positive manner like a prayer.
If people started using "Citizen Speakout" time to talk about Jesus, they would shut that down. Welcome to the new McCarthism. Will we end up marching in the streets for our rights while the media wields the fire hoses and dogs?
Trust me. Suppressing Jesus is just the first step. The next thing they will suppress is criticism of the President. We are already the seeing the first signs of this from the media.
“I think they realize that America wants to see results, and they don't want gridlock. So I think this is an extraordinary moment. I guess my passion is for something to happen to fix these problems, and for dialing down of all of the sharp criticism that we have on cable talk, on talk radio, from, you know, the blogosphere".....Andrea Mitchell 01/7/2009
Comment by Henry — January 10, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Henry,
I will try this one more time. This is not about the state suppressing the speech of private individuals. It is about the state setting appropriate parameters for the speech of government officials and agents. Period. It is about what is appropriate for someone to say when they are acting as the voice of the government, not the voice of a private individual.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 10, 2009 @ 9:34 am
What I find particularly interesting about this discussion is that Jesus himself, in telling us how to pray, said that we should go into a room and pray privately:
"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Matthew 6:5-6)"
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — January 10, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Joe,
What I find interesting is the fact that people have no problem telling Christians they should pray in secret and only be allowed to express beliefs in certain settings because someone else might be offended at an public display of faith. Remarkably, it has become politically correct to do so.
I can't help but wonder how supportive these 'enlightened and open' minds would be if similar logic were applied to things like sexual orientation. You know, something like "you can be homosexual as long as you only express it at home or in gay bars, but please, no gay pride parades. After all, the bible declares homosexuality an abomination and it might oofend some people to see people openly declare their orientation in public."
Oh wait, society did that in the past and the practice is now condemened as intolerant and bigoted. Never mind, just keep bringing more lions into the colliseum.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 10, 2009 @ 11:56 am
C,
No one is telling Christians they can't have parades or open worship in churches, or even Bible clubs in schools (as long as other extracurricular clubs are allowed. Again, and I'm getting weary of saying this, the only issue is what government officials or agents can say when speaking for the government.
That's it, period. And something tells me if a public official opened a public meeting with a prayer promoting homosexuality, some of you might just object.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 10, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
C Ramsey...
I point to Joe (ntp)'s comment number 21 in support of my position. I don't feel the need to get out in public and express my beliefs in a higher being nor do I feel the need to pray in public. They build churches exactly for that purpose. They don't build state houses for that purpose.
Besides, after listening to some of the prayers that have been offered up, I would strongly suggest a course in public speaking before even attempting such activity in the first place.
Comment by Will — January 10, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Jesus Christ, what in God's name is wrong with you people? Why the hell can't you understand we go to council meetings to discuss government issues? --- There you go, free speech. Anyone have any problems with it?
Comment by Blue John — January 10, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Dan,
I have absolutely no problem if you want to pray for homosexuality at any meeting. I have no problem if anyone of any faith wants to pray at a meeting. In fact, I seem to remember a motion in Montgomery County to have meetings opened each week with prayer from a different faith. I think it's fine as long as everyone is afforded the same opportunity. I may find what some would say to be offensive, but I strongly believe in their right to say it.
But then my interpretation of the 1st Amendment differs from yours. I don't believe the first intends an absolute exclusion of religion from government. I think it means precisely what it says, that Congress shouldn't pass a law establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over another. If the founders had intended to completely remove religious reference from government, it wouldn't have been included in the day to day operation of government back then. The government leaders wouldn't have used religious references in most every political speech of the day. But since then, the 1st has been twisted into a move to banish any religious expression into the purely private realm.
Personally, I don't think someone saying a prayer at a meeting establishes a state religion. If you offered your homosexual proposed prayer, I wouldn't think "oh my, the government has established a homosexual religion." I would feel no compunction to follow the homosexual preachings. Instead I would think it falls under the free exercise clause. But if the Board or Council or Congress then passed a law saying honmosexuality is the religion of this jurisdiction, that would be a clear violation.
In my opinion this absolute prohibition is just as silly and self serving as the argument that the second amendment protects the right of the government to maintain a military force and the states to have a national guard. ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights protect the INDIVIDUAL's rights from an over reaching government, yet the anti-gun people continue to argue that the 2nd Amendment is the exception and it doesn't apply to individual gun owners but instead to the national guard.
Comment by C Ramsey — January 10, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
C Ramsey,
No one is suppressing Jesus. I think you are misguided in thinking that we must be allowed to say anything we want anywhere we want, appropriate or not. I would say that a prayer in Allah's name or any other name would still be inappropriate in a public, governmental setting.
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — January 10, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how some people cannot think outside the box. They assume that everyone in the world thinks or at least should think like them. Believe it or not in Bedford County there are rescue squads and fire companies that begin their businees meetings with "The Lord's Prayer" and similar Jesus-oriented prayers. This is often reflected in their published minutes. The person doing the prayer/invocation is generally not an ordained clergy person, but rather a member of the organization. There is clearly a bias here towards fundamental Christianity and those who fall outside that category are basically ignored. Mormons, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests and any other non-Christians have to sit and listen to a non-inclusive invocation. That prayer could serve as a reminder to treat all people with respect, or to work together for the common good and not simply for selfish goals. But even the most eloquent and sincere prayer directed to a specific deity can be a source of tension, anger, frustration and ultimately feeling left out and ostracised when it's not your god to whom the prayer is being directed.
Religion and faith have a place in society. Our constitution guarantees that right. But why do people assume it is an unlimited and absolute right? We have free speech, yet one is not free to scream FIRE in a crowded, darkened theater. Why do some people feel absolutely free when screaming the name of Jesus, or Allah, Vishnu, and the thousands of other Deities to whom people of the world bow and pray...in a crowded city or county council chamber?
Comment by H. Hopper — January 10, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Dan
I don't know if you have been following this story but they are banning prayer from the meeting, not trying to introduce it. Let me reinterate. They are banning prayer from the meeting. It was previously allowed and now the State wants to silence it. And they are doing it because someone mentioned the word "Jesus" in a positive way. If someone had said "Jesus, hurry up and vote, guys", it wouldn't be a problem. But if someone says "In Jesus Name", suddenly there is a problem. What the difference between the two forms of speech?
If a person says "We should have gay marriage" in a council meeting, does that mean gay marriage is supported by the government? I doubt it. So if someone says "In Jesus Name" at a meeting, why does that mean that the government supports Christianity?
I find it really ironic that a newspaper would support the idea that banning normally accepted speech is freedom. It's Orwellian. "Silence brings freedom".
Comment by Henry — January 10, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Well Joe, that's the great thing about a free society. You are free to think I'm misguided in my beliefs about the 1st Amendment and I'm free to believe that you have succumbed to the politically correct movement in society that while espousing freedom and tolerance, actually diminishes freedom and suppresses independent thought, ideas and speech.
To that end, I would like to correct a fallacy in your statement. I don't think anyone should be able to say anything, anywhere. I think the line is drawn at speech that tends to or has the potential to promote, create or cause actual harm to others. So perhaps you can convince me. What is the harm caused by the speech in question? Do you really believe that this type of speech rises to the level of Congress passing a law that establishes one religion over others? Or is it because some people might be offended? If it's the latter, please direct me to the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to be free from being offended.
Personally, I don't believe someone saying a prayer at a meeting comes anywhere close to meeting the Constitutional prohibition against Congress passing a law that establishes a religion. However, I do think it is quite clear that making it a Federal violation to say that same prayer most certainly amounts to passing a law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Comment by C Ramsey — January 10, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
C Ramsey,
First, as a Christian, I believe in what is said in Matthew's Gospel - public prayer is not what we are called to do and I especially believe that of government meetings.
Second, ask yourself if the next 12 council meetings were opened by Muslim ministers in the name of Allah or other ministers in the name of other gods would you really be happy? Do you think the majority of those who call themselves Christian would be content and say "well, that's free speech" ? Would you?
Several letters in today's times make it clear that they don't see this as a free speech issue, but rather that we need to pray to Jesus because that is what their faith tells them. I am afraid that praying in a government setting with those intentions is asking government to respect Christianity above other religions. That is why the first amendment really does speak against it.
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — January 11, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
"First, as a Christian, I believe in what is said in Matthew's Gospel - public prayer is not what we are called to do"
Yes but should the State enforce what Jesus said? I don't have a problem with you going into your closet. I have a problem with you making other people go in their closet.
"Second, ask yourself if the next 12 council meetings were opened by Muslim ministers in the name of Allah or other ministers in the name of other gods would you really be happy?"
The question is irrelevant. You should be asking "Second, ask yourself if the next 12 council meetings were opened by Muslim ministers in the name of Allah or other ministers in the name of other gods would you want the power of the State to silence them?" Answer: No. Whether I like it or not doesn't make any difference.
Comment by Henry — January 11, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
At a government meeting like a town council meeting, there is no real freedom of speech if you think about it. First, if anyone wanted to get up and speak, they have to do it in the segment allotted for it and in a brief time period. No one can stand up during a council discussion and start saying anything - they would get escorted out.
My question is not irrelevant - the problem is that people want to believe that our government is christian and should favor christianity. If there were a rotation of ministers, I think that would be nice, but I'm sure that there would be a lot of complaints about that. But, I ask again, how would you feel if the next 12 meetings had prayers all in the name of Vishnu? That is what non-Christians feel when people want all meetings to be opened in the name of Jesus. This is truly a question of people wanting government to sponsor Christianity.
As for my beliefs, it is not that I want the State to enforce Jesus' teaching, it is just that I do not understand some of my fellow Christians' belief that prayers should be public in government settings.
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — January 11, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Joe
Let's say they always had prayer at the town meeting. A Muslim comes in and offers a prayer. Immediately, there are calls to end the practice of prayer because the name of Allah had been mentioned. What would a reasonable person conclude?
They would conclude that the government doesn't like Islam. It's has nothing to do with government and religion. It's all about suppressing a certain belief while disguising it as "freedom".
It's fine that you do not understand it or support it. It's not fine if you want the State to suppress it because you disagree with it.
Comment by Henry — January 11, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Henry,
You lost me on the last one. I do not see the government not supporting something as the same as suppressing it. Even if this has been a practice in the past, that doesn't make it necessarily right. A huge reason behind the first amendment is to avoid discrimination by the religion that the state supports. As well, it is to avoid discrimination of minority religions. Just because a practice has been tolerated by the majority and other groups have not had the numbers to mount an effective challenge does not make it a proper practice.
I feel that nothing stops me from praying. I pray silent prayers many times a day. Praying out loud or in public forums does not make my prayer any better.
Comment by Joe (ntp) Merola — January 11, 2009 @ 5:42 pm