2009.01.01
Lea's decision is right for him
On this New Year's morning, a moment of silence, please.
Prayer, it seems, is too much of a political hornet's nest.
Vice Mayor Sherman Lea has decided to remove his name from the list of ministers who pray before the Roanoke City Council.
The reason? He caused a dustup up by obliquely referring to Jesus Christ in a prayer earlier this month.
That prompted an e-mail that threatened a lawsuit if the "illegal" and "offensive" use of sectarian prayer happened again.
Rather than temper or sanitize his religious beliefs, Lea, a minister, said he'll no longer offer to ask for divine oversight for those conducting city business.
I understand Lea's decision. Prayer is talking to God. If Lea feels he might go "off cue" in his conversation with the Lord, he's doing best by refusing to lead a prayer. That way, he doesn't feel compromised, and no one feels offended.
As a Christian, I'm indifferent to prayers before public meetings. My indifference has nothing to do with freedom of speech, separation of church and state or any of the other political hot buttons.
My issue is one of practicality.
When I attend a public meeting, it's usually for work. My mind isn't focused on nor my heart attuned to spiritual matters. I'm thinking about the logistics of how to carry out my assignment.
As one who prays several times daily, I'm in the habit of sending up my timbers in the private sanctuary of my mind -- not in council chambers as Mayor David Bowers prepares to call a vote on the consent agenda.
That said, government prayer is a prickly issue.
A federal court of appeal in July upheld a lower court ruling against a Baptist minister who gave a sectarian prayer before the Fredericksburg council. The minister wants to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although the prayer issue seems to have gained momentum over the years, it's certainly nothing new. As a high school sophomore more than 30 years ago, I was asked to pray at a high school function.
My teacher gave me guidelines. I typed out my prayer, and the teacher viewed it beforehand and went over it with me. One of my classmates teased me for "reading" a prayer, something that in my spiritual tradition is supposed to be spontaneous and heartfelt.
Lea made the right decision for him. Uttering a prayer that would feel to him compromised would border on meaningless.
And prayer should be meaningful.
Agree. There was a time when many people held similar beliefs, so the prayer was a way to open the meeting that all agreed to. Doesn't appear to be the same nowadays. Oh well. Those who pray can open the meeting with their own prayer, a little personal reflection before the meeting. Then get down to business.
Sounds like Lea made the right decision.
Comment by Ed S. — January 1, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Big Daddy Sherm Lea and Dandy Dave Bowers are the last two PoliPigs on earth I voted for and will again, but......a PoliPig saying a "prayer" is about as oxymoronic and incongruous as anything could ever be. A PoliPig saying a "prayer" makes about as much sense as putting a saddle on a cow. You can do it, but it don't make sense.
Comment by Percy Kution — January 1, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Shanna,
I agree that Sherman Lea make the propoer command decision. As a member of City Council with supporters who have great expectations for his leadership, Sherman showed wisdom in removing himself from the list of minister invited to offer an invocation prior to City Council meetings.
I recommend Linda R. Monk's excellent book, "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution."
In the discussion of the First Amendment, Monk looks at the inherent conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Monk notes that the Supreme Court has traditionally restricted public prayer in schools because children are subject to peer pressure. Adults ought to be able to ignore peer pressure, and so Monk cites the 1983 ruling in Marsh V. Chambers which said that "prayers to open daily legislative sessions, even with government-funded chaplains, are constitutional."
She does not say that the Court prescribed the format or content of those prayers.
I was at he 15 DEC meeting of City Council, and I do not believe that Sherman's prayer constitutes "establishment." His prayer did not make it impossible for me to vote or hold public office. Only I control the first right, and only a wise marketplace keeps me from the other privilege.
[Ironically, my church affiliation is what was called The Church Established in pre-Revolution Virginia, and as such, I was one of a handful of people in that chamber who would have been allowed to vote or hold office in Virginia prior to our separation from England.]
In our democracy, plurality (the willing acceptance of belifs different from our own) is important for continued civil behavior. In an earlier time in the Middle East, Muslims, Christians and Jews regarded each other as "people of the book" and accorded each other some courtesy since we are all sons and daughters of Abraham.
"May God bless us all, every one."
Mike
Comment by Michael Ramsey — January 1, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
It is amazing that prayers have been offered at official meetings for as long as some folk can remember, yet only now is it offensive when a prayer is offered in the name of “his Son” or if the name of Jesus is invoked.
Why?
Comment by Foster — January 1, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Pray was taken out of schools, as not to offend. How many kids know how to pray or pledge the flag of the United States? The seperation becomes a chasem and the most simple, logical recourse would be to have a few minutes of silence so that each person could connect to whatever higher power he/she wished. And who would then be offended? Oh someone would be because some people are never pleased with anything, ever.
Oppression gives birth to rebellion, when a communtiy preys on it's weakest members, it grows weak.
Can't we coxist, loosing this seperatist mentality????
Comment by Dona Wheeler — January 2, 2009 @ 3:12 am
Foster:
Probably because it's the law of the land. And, yes, Mr. Lea reached the correct decision.
Comment by mike — January 2, 2009 @ 5:44 am
Dona,
By no means am I a religious scholar. Just from what has been passed down to me by word of mouth, prayers were generally initiated at these functions because, at the time, most or all members were of the same faith and agreed to seek the Lord's guidance prior to the meeting.
So we fast forward to now. Having more non-Christians in the country means more chances one or more will be at a particular function. Throw in a statistical few that may simply like to complain or stir up the hornet's nest.
That's fine. I can live with the fact that someone is not a Christian and does not believe in a prayer to God. I'm happy with praying to myself before the function and coming to the meeting ready to git-r-done, as Shanna noted. If a moment of silence is preferable to all, that's okay with me, but it is less useful to me than personal meditation time outside of meeting time.
Comment by Ed S. — January 2, 2009 @ 8:05 am
I was brought up this way. When my dad offered a prayer on sunday morning he always said will you bow your heads and JOIN me in prayer.Now to me that meant that everybody use that time to talk to the lord at the same time he did.It wasnt a time to make copy for a news story.When my dad prayed the lord was listening and you could feel.My dad is gone now but he is reaping his reward now for calling on Jesus Christ all his adult life.
Comment by charlie — January 2, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Michael Ramsey's post gives thorough and thought provoking discussion points on this matter. Sherman Lea's decision was correct, since he couldn't bring himself to offer non-sectarian prayers at council meetings. This type of prayer has been the established format and should be followed and respected.
What troubles me is the outpouring of derision that comes from those who feel that God is an exclusive entity of Christians, and, by making prayers non-sectarian in government settings, there's an assault taking place against God or people's spirituality. The founding fathers intent is being followed by having non-sectarian prayers, since the colonies were formed to get away from the tyranny of the Church of England. In all of their documents-Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.-guidance or strength from God, not a Christian God but an all encompassing God, was looked to for the success of the new country.
Non-sectarian prayer gives respect and honor to, as Michael Ramsey points out, all of the "People of the Book", and that is every believer of Divine Authority, no matter how a person worships that Power.
Comment by Henry Hale — January 2, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Additional observations:
Critics of prayer at public functions often cite "separation of church and state."
Over the past decades, I have read and re-read the US Constitution along with many exegetical texts. Nowhere have I found that phrase.
If you paraphrase the Establish Clause into a Separation Clause, you do injustice to the English language and to the historical context in which the First Amendment was written.
The use of the word "separation" is a ruse begun by contrarians to divert our attention away from the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
While the Church Established was a gateway to the halls of power in Virginia and other southern colonies, Maryland was a Roman Catholic colony and the New England colonies were controlled by Congregationists and Baptists.
In today's America, there is no established church, thanks to the Framers. Indeed, there is no established religion. However, it appears that most of us believe in a deity, and in a free market the majority made up of belivers will not react kindly to those who do not belive in a deity. That sort of selection cannot be controlled by government -- nor should it be.
By kowotwing to one opinion (e.g., we should not have prayers at public meetings), we are limiting the Free Expression clause of the First Amendment.
The non-partisan prayer is the compromise position because it becomes -- to use a musical anology -- the ground upon which we all impose our own trills and flourishes.
Thanks for the forum!
Comment by Michael Ramsey — January 2, 2009 @ 11:14 am
RE Your Bill White article. Bill White doesn't have a following because Bill White is NOT a real Nazi, he's a modern day "Frank Collins," and agent of the ADL and SPLC engaged in stirring the pot, i.e. creating a racist bogeyman -
Google Frank Collins Nazi fae and then google Bill White fake fraud.
Jewry hopes to effectively link terrorism to so-called Nazis, so that any critics of International Jewry [Zionism for the feint of heart] can be labeled "Nazis" and silenced.
Comment by curt maynard — January 2, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
I, being a huge fan of both Jesus Christ and Vice Mayor Sherman Lea, consider myself rather bias on this subject so I am glad to see that others agree that he made the right decision. God bless this city and its leaders when people become so offended at the mere mention of the name of Jesus.
Comment by Lo — January 5, 2009 @ 8:21 am