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

They are correct there is no need for a Christian or any other religious ceremony by a government body before conducting government business. If an individual member feels a need to do so before conducting government business they can do on their own time.

 

What work needs to be done, why do Christians have a need to conduct a religious ceremony during a government business. What is the purpose that such a demand be made?

 

I don't know what the "prayer" that was said is but at our City Council meeting the prayer is to guide the councilmen to make the right decisions. I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about. If they aren't doing that, what's the point? Prayer for the sake of prayer? So while it's not Sharia Law, it's a close second. Your point is completely disingenuous. Your point is prayer for the sake of prayer. What's the point.

 

d and agents of the government that police the public property, can hardly fail to notice that they endorse a specific set of religious ideas. That propaganda placed on public property for one faith, is a step in establishing that religion

Anti-theist zealotry * the emboldened material)deserves the same treatment as defenses of racial bigotry. I will treat this post exactly like I would some neo-Nazi or segregationist diatribe over an internet site. I ignore it.

That leaves your comments on the law. Your point is taken with respect to Congress, but the courts need not be as deferential towards other meetings including State legislatures city councils, school boards and countless 'blue ribbon' or administrative public meetings.

 

Good for them. If they want the assembly can meet outside for a prayer session w/o forcing others to be there.

 

They do love tilting at windmills.

Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.

In a 6-3 decision in favor of Marsh, Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion for the majority. The Chief Justice noted that the position of chaplain has been closely tied to the work of state and federal legislatures. "This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged."

And a more recent case:

Question before the court
Does the town of Greece, New York, impose an impermissible establishment of religion by opening its monthly board meetings with a prayer?

Decision of the court
The Court ruled that the town's practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy stated: "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents." The court concluded that the town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents.

The majority held that sectarian prayers at government meetings are permissible under the Constitution. “To hold that invocations must be non-sectarian would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts deciding these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote for himself and the majority of the court. Lawmakers and judges would otherwise have to police prayer, he wrote, involving “government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing nor approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact.” This means that prayers are allowed to invoke particular religious affiliations without running afoul of the First Amendment prohibition against endorsement of religion at federal, state or local level.

Kennedy stated that U.S. Constitution doesn't require the town of Greece to search outside the town for chaplains from other faiths as long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination. He however included a restraint on legislature prayers by stating that "the purpose of legislative prayer is to lend gravity” to sessions where “the divisive business of governing” will take place. Noting that legislature prayer should be “solemn and respectful in tone”, Kennedy went on to state that when legislative prayers are used as an opportunity to condemn or try to convert people who are not members of a particular religion, then these prayers would not conform with the Constitution. He added in general: "Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a particular prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation."

Justice Kennedy wrote: “Legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate.” According to the majority legislative prayers might be impermissible if they “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” or if the prayer giver is chosen in a religiously discriminatory way.

Justice Thomas wrote in his separate opinion (which was joined in part by Justice Scalia) that the case should be dismissed because the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states and its subdivisions, but only to Congress. He also stated that the Constitution would have only been violated if “actual legal coercion” like imposing taxes to pay for the church is used.

 

No, not quite. When they say 'right decisions', they do not mean right by their God. It's not "I hope we're making this in the fashion John Chapter 2 would". No, it's "I hope we're making the right moral decisions based on our principle". Faith is about maintaining their principled belief system. The Clergy does not have power over that belief system, nor is the Clergy exercising political power over the politicians lol.

I really, REALLY would love to argue against our retarded, false interpretation of the Establishment Clause. A person's beliefs, or even acting on their beliefs is NOT the same as the merger between the Church-State. For that, you'd have to see if the act in question is designed to benefit the Church POLITICALLY.

**Knocks head on wall**. I swear, sometimes politically this country drives me up a wall. But I still love yall.

 

The quick work that SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. Therefore it shouldn't take up their time. Send a memo out to the Lib **** Judges telling them to quit trying to play with the ruling by SCOTUS that has already been made.

Even if they decided to hold an invocation before they started the business at hand. Those that aren't religious would still bitch about the issue. Would still whine and cry that something religious was connected to a government function. Even if it is on whatever community's own time.

 

Whomp there it is.....Kennedy applying common sense and reasoning. If those that are there are not religious, then go take a smoke break, and ST$U.

 

Apparently the Fourth Circuit has judges that cant read the Constitution.

 

Also apparently, the MSMedia can't give out those Judges names. Lets start putting these Lame liberal judges names out to the public so that they can be humiliated and scorned. Let them be put on display to the American people. So they know their shame and are forced to live with it.

 

You're wrong again. Atheists have no principled beliefs? The flaw is (according to the posts on this forum) different faiths have different principled beliefs so if you have faith A give the prayer one week and faith B the next your going with a different belief system each time.
The clergy IS that belief system. That's their job and they have political power of the politicians constituents, thereby the politicians. The Church did that for centuries.......where have you been? THAT's why there is the Establishment Clause, that and the fact at the time several states had "official" religions.

 

Everyone who supports the idea of prayer before a council meeting needs to ask themselves whether they would still support the idea if it were not a Christian prayer. Would you support a council that asked for Allah's guidance before every council meeting? Or if the prayer were Jewish? Or any other religion?

The same goes for any religious symbol or display or statement by any government organ. Would you be just as happy for a government organ to display exclusively Islamic symbols?

 

One day, the tyrannical, iron clad fist of Religion will be cast into a funeral pyre. And much like the collapsing Barad-dur, all will awaken to a world bereft of psychological slavery, and free from the confines of idiots preaching nonsense as fact, free from philosophy being injected into the science classroom, free from ethnic cleansing conflicts over who worships who and how, or just how.

Politicians praying is an open endorsement of religion, and is unethical.

I have posted this before - Christianity is nothing but a jewish creation to control poor people which was forced on native Europeans (White Americans) through war and slavery and ethnic cleansing by peace loving Christian invaders.

This country is fast tracked to give way too much power to a very small sect of people - evangelical Christians - and we have seen throughout history what happens when the religious or those that emulate them, have power - from the Crusades, to the Nazis, to Stalin, Pol Pot, the Empire of Japan, the current worldwide Jihad crisis, all are either religious or modeled after religion, conflicts, that have occurred and killed millions of people.

One day, that effigy will collapse from the weight of its own hypocrisy.

And I will laugh.

 

I didn't say anything about judges or the ruling try again.

What work needs to be done, why do Christians have a need to conduct a religious ceremony during a government business. What is the purpose that such a demand be made?

 

Why should a state assembly paid for by taxpayers push a certain faith ? I agree with this ruling.

 

What principle beliefs do you believe they hold that are unique to and indicitive of Christians that I as an athiest do not hold. Not their faith but the principles you are talking about?

 

If they are doing it before any council meeting then its on their own time. What does it matter if its any religion. If the community is Muslim then I am sure their religion would be the one doing the invocation. Why should you care what a community of Muslims are doing. Why would you care if what a Community of Jews are doing. Why would you care what a Community of Christians are doing. If it is all done on their own time.

Did you understand what Kennedy had to say? Able to comprehend what he said? If SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. Then isn't it time to drop the whining and crying. As whining and crying about it.....isn't going to Change what SCOTUS already ruled. Moreover, why keep wasting the courts time when the matter has been decided already.

 

Well I was saying the SCOTUS should make quick work of a decision they already ruled on. Which you asked what work needs to be done. That's the only work I see that needs to be done.

What did Kennedy say.....its tradition. The prayer doesn't coerce those who do not want to participate in it. So those that don't like it.....oh well.

 

I can tell you're not religious in anyway, because calling the clergy the 'belief system' is an insult to every God-fearing individual out there. The clergy, the organization of the Church has no symbiotic relationship to God other than its purported relationship. And likewise, no clergy holds power over any sane and well-reasoned religious person. In reality, the relationship between the church-goer and the Church, is that it is a place of prayer(and listening to those sermons.) Nothing more. Some may very well donate(Which I don't recommend, it's an obvious ponzi scheme but that's for another discussion.)

So now that your theory here(and every other theory you've suggested) has been outright debunked, let's once again examine the truth: The Establishment Clause is meant to prevent Northern Ireland, the Taliban, etc. It is not meant to reject an individual's faith, just because he works for an organization. It's only meant to prevent the merger of activities between the State/Church, nothing else.

Indeed, I find I might not even oppose political activities on religious grounds, so long as the Clergy does not attempt to seize power over the State or for the State to promote the political activities/goals thereof of a religion. That is ALL the Establishment Clause is.

This argument over whether or not(for example) to give public funds to a denomination-oriented school, is an intellectual paux on the part of the Courts.

 

We agree what the Establishment Clause is but not the interpretation of its use. We agree to disagree. In my opinion it does not make sense to say "It's only meant to prevent the merger of activities between the State/Church, nothing else" and then say it's alright to have a prayer to start a legislative meeting. That is the merger of activities.
"The clergy, the organization of the Church has no symbiotic relationship to God other than its purported relationship." I'm not sure that statement makes sense but regardless the Pope to Catholics is kinda a big deal. Infallible.
"And likewise, no clergy holds power over any sane and well-reasoned religious person. " Then why the hubbub over Obama's former pastor? There could be an argument made that religious people are not well-reasoned. Sane.....maybe.

 

If it is done in a private closed-door session before they enter the legislative chamber that is one thing. It is on their own time. If they do it in the legislative chamber once the public has been invited in, it is not on their own time.

 

I agree with that. But then look what SCOTUS ruled and what Kennedy said.

 

Sure if they do it outside the meeting and privately to themselves or if they want to do a group religious ceremony outside on their own time BEFORE they come into the city council room as government officials.

 

Yes and what work needs to be done, why do Christians have a need to conduct a religious ceremony during a government business. What is the purpose that such a demand be made?