Fourth Circuit Rules Against Prayer Before Legislative Meetings.....

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against county commissioners' right to open legislative meetings in Rowan County, North Carolina with invocations by a vote of 10-5 on Friday.

A similar situation is unfolding in Jackson County, Michigan. In 2013, a plaintiff sued the county for holding monthly legislative invocations he argued violated the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. A federal district court initially ruled in favor of the county, but in 2017 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling. It is currently pending before the latter panel.

The tradition of legislative invocations has been in place in America since the nation’s earliest days, and the Supreme Court has also upheld the practice in two important cases: Marsh v. Chambers (1983), which upheld invocations by a chaplain who was an officer of the legislature and paid with public funds, and most recently in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), which upheld the ability of the town of Greece, New York, to open its town board meetings with an invocation offered by clergy.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortn...-prayers-before-legislative-meetings-n2355110

Well the leftness should prepare themselves for another loss.....when it comes to Religious freedom. Once SCOTUS gets this, they will stand on what they already ruled. Although it is amusing how Liberal Judges don't know how SCOTUS has already dealt with this matter. Worse would be that they do know and think they can overrule the SCOTUS. What say ye?

 

Another reason to rejoice that Donald Trump is the president.

 

At least with the SCOTUS and putting Gorsuch on there. The SCOTUS should be able to make quick work with this one. But they should also be about reprimanding these Leftist Judges publicly.

 

Absolutely, Obama and his judges trying to fundamentally change America. Go back to kenya.

 

Allahu Akbar!! Just like the founding fathers intended.

 

Oregon had the invocation at its legislature as well. I used to go down daily in the 80's and I was impressed by how broadly they searched for diversity beyond Christianity. I saw a Japanese Buddhist ceremony, a Native American dance, the Rahjneeshees, an Islamic innvocation, a Rabbi, and yes, someone from the local secular humanist club in Portland take a turn giving some remarks.

As an atheist/ agnostic, I really rather enjoyed finding out each day who was going to give it. Under those circumstances. I think it is permissible. those who were religious and who matched the particular cleric may have taken a religious experience away but for the rest of us it was more about cultural diversity, reminding us how many different kinds of Oregonians that body actually represented.

 

Just don't have invocations, that's not hard is it? Seriously I have issues in other areas military chaplains not being required to be trained and if needed to fight for their country they get a pass even though they are technically military personnel so should be expected to act like it. How could a soldier trust a man or woman not ready to defend them in combat with at least a side arm if not a rifle.

 

I said I think it is permissible, but I don't claim the capital building would undergo tremors if it didn't happen. I see it as a very mild policy matter either way. If the effort is made to be inclusive and include both secular messages and some diverse religious ones,, let the body decide whether it is worth some effort or not.

As for your second example, maybe the military is crazy to demand that every human being in its ranks have to be able to undergo that training or pass a physical. Some great talent is being denied, secondary to such limitations. Translators, secretaries medical staff , Chaplains that need never go near a frontline can still serve their country admirably. I guess its not so much about what they do, but where they do it.

 

Wow, you're breaking ranks with your fellow Liberals on this one.(And good for you.) Prayer/invocation is not an attempt by the Clergy to take over the State. We need to finally and definitively understand what the Founders wanted with the Church/State clause. What they wanted to prevent was the Taliban, or the Northern Ireland struggle. By no means did they say "Oh, government worker must not express his or her religious views." The State itself, must not express those views. Not the individual.

It's similar to how a statement by an individual does not necessarily represent the company he works for.

 

I was going with Baraka Bashad.....May the blessing be. Then again, there was that Samuel Adams beer, Right?

 

I don't want to leave the impression I am strolling far from the liberal reservation here. There is a constitutional question and a public policy question to be resolved in all of these cases. It is the effort to include a wide number of diverse religious voices and some secular ones, that make this justifiable as both constitutional and public policy. If you only have one chaplin giving the same basic invocation each day, the benefit is curtailed and the problems start to emerge.

 

And let's say it were. Let's say that theoretically, the vast majority of Congress is filled with Christians. Isn't this a violation? Why not? Because the politicians are acting in a secular, non-religious manner. The individual perspective has no meaning with regards to the stature, it was meant solely and strictly to prevent a religious state, not the expression thereof.

 

I think the Government officially recognizing atheism as a religion would help fix situations like this.

 

How are you proving that all those Christian politicians or most of them, are acting in a secular non-religious manner during the innovation?

 

Treat politicians like children. Problem solved.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...allowed-and-forbidden/?utm_term=.0576e5cc7efd

A political assembly is a captive audience. They shouldn't be forced to listen to religious mumbo jumbo.

 

It isn't necessarily that secular behavior has to be non-religious, but that it has to include all religions. Hell, it doesn't even have to include any religion at all, as long as it doesn't sanction its views. The views cannot be sanctioned by the POWER of the State. The Framers wanted to prevent political collusion(favorite Dem word at the moment, so it should ring a bell) between the State and the Clergy.

We went from that, to this retarded assertion that any activity by a religious-leaning person is collusive in nature, it isn't lol. To make it clear: I'm a non-Christian(more like Spiritual leaning Agnostic) that's in support of public prayer, because the modern day interpretation is flat out distorting the Framers.

 

Here I will talk policy as opposed to the constitution. Here's what I care about. I don't want your more 'generous' interpretation anywhere near public schools or courthouses. I don't want anyone deciding that a little bit of organized prayer or 'moments of silence' are harmless as long as the 10 year old is not 'forced' to engage. If you want good Christian teachings and prayer time, then fund it in your own private school. keep your crosses and ten commandments off the property, I don't care about Silent Night sung by the choir, or a Christmas tree, or a slide show including some great paintings which have Mary some saints and a Christ figure as long as we are talking about the school of art, how the shading impacts point of view and how that Christ figure attains three dimensional affect.
I don't want literature censured of all religious reference because that can exclude virtually all the great poetry and drama of the Western world and I don't care what kids write about or what they discuss in the hallways in peer to peer communications. I care what the staff do with respect to promoting a faith or being perceived to do so. Teachers cannot run a bible club but a bible club can exist after hours run by students.

I care that a Muslim or Hindu defendant NOT see that Ten commandments perched in front of the judges desk or a bible sitting at his right hand. I care that we not leave the impression that truth and justice is tailored and measured to fit some parties based on a shared faith with the judge or jury. Religious trappings will corrode the way justice is seen by non Christians hoping for a fair deal.

I don't care about what is on our coins or what happens at graduation ceremonies, or what is in the pledge much as long as students do not feel obliged to say it. I think Agnostics and Atheists should pick their battles and then fight hard but they are capable of compromise, or they should be, when real proselytizing is not happening on the public dollar.

 

No it's not. The logic of your argument is wrong.

 

What an overpowering statement of logic, whatever shall I do!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bolded for point of emphasis. By 'respecting an establishment', it is easily meant to mean that we cannot have religion be established as a part of government. Public property is not a PART of Government, since it has no government function. Thus the Liberal argument in its entirety is eliminated. Not even Public schools, since education is not inherently a government function either.

Furthermore, if no political authority is granted to a Church or school, etc, then it cannot logically break the Establishment Clause. It's the Establishment Clause not the "Because I don't like it, it shouldn't be allowed clause". The way we've interpreted the Establishment Clause is an intellectual joke.

https://content.law.virginia.edu/news/2005_fall/mcconnell.htm Here, let's have a judge explain what 'establishment' meant. An actual, freaking Establishment.

The Liberal abuse of the Establishment Clause, basically violates religious liberties. Imagine that.

 

How are they a captive audience? They are free to get up and walk out anytime.

 

So your logic has it being ok for a government meeting to start with a christian prayer. THAT's the free exercising of your religion. YOUR religion (bold for emphasis). Government property has nothing to do with the post, the government function is the point.

 

It has NO government function. Let's take the US Postal Office. What "government function" does the US Postal Office have? None, it has a function to deliver mail to our citizens. It just happens to be CONTRACTED by the government, but it does not function for the government or have a political power.

The Framers only wanted to prevent one thing and one thing alone: Political Authority to the Clergy. Affiliation is not Authority de facto lol. The idea that association/affiliation conferred with it political rights is absurd. By that notion, all aliens automatically became citizens when they stepped foot on US Soil.

 

A legislative meeting is not a government function? You know what, never mind. You have a logic only you understand.

 

It's obvious that the politicians are full of BS and are about as religious as a big pile of it. If they were really religious in any sense they would not turn their gangster meetings into mini church revivals featuring a gaggle of other people's deities. They would not even hold a public prayer if they were Christians because it violates Yeshua's commandment to do one's praying in private. Besides, it violates Exodus 20:7 about taking Yahweh's = the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies = name in vain as well as having other gods before him (Exodus 20:3). And it also violates the doctrines of countless other religions as well.

Any truly religious person, regardless of religion, should be highly ticked off about the public prayer roulette game. So if you see any priest, preacher, rabbi, iman, guru, or whatever participate in such events then you are looking at a heretic and a fraud.

But from a legal standpoint such practices are legal by tradition because the dummies that wrote the Constitution had such prayers at their meetings when they wrote it and when they met in session. Consequently if the SCOTUS ban such prayers they would have a Constitutional crisis because Congress has the absolute right to determine its own rules of conduct and decorum. So it could tell the SCOTUS to go screw itself.

 

No, it's not. For you see, unless the actions of the legislators are dictated by the religion(it is the actions, not the actual participants that are the function), it is still secular no matter how many religious prayers they have lol. It's stupidly and utterly simple. Except for Liberals to get.

As I said: Our modern interpretation of the Separation Clause would get facepalms from our Framers.

George Washington: "Really, REALLY America?"