By JESSICA GRESKO
Associated Press WASHINGTON — It happens every week at meetings in towns, counties and cities nationwide. A lawmaker or religious leader leads a prayer before officials begin the business of zoning changes, contract approvals and trash pickup (in other words, the practice of prayer in government has a history going back to the Founders. One must conclude that the Founders themselves were in violation of the constitution, or were ignorant of what it meant Thank goodness we have such a better understanding of the constitution than the Founders!).
But citizens are increasingly taking issue with these prayers, some of which have been in place for decades. At least five lawsuits around the country — in California, Florida, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee — are actively challenging premeeting prayers.
Lawyers on both sides say there is a new complaint almost weekly, though they don’t always end up in court. When they do, it seems even courts are struggling to draw the line over the acceptable ways to pray (Herein lies the problem. The courts' struggles are because they are involved! The government has absolutely no authority to speak at all regarding religion.). Some lawyers and lawmakers believe it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the differences. The court has previously declined to take on the issue (as well it should, except to strike down all previous lower court interventions into religious expression), but lawyers in a New York case plan to ask the justices in December to revisit it. And even if the court doesn’t take that particular case, it could accept a similar one in the future.
Lawmakers who defend the prayers cite the nation’s founders and say they’re following a long tradition of prayer before public meetings. They say residents don’t have to participate and having a prayer adds solemnity to meetings and serves as a reminder to do good work (to add to that, this is a free speech/freedom of assembly/religious freedom issue. "Congress shall make no law... is pretty clear, isn't it?).
“It’s a reassuring feeling,” said Lakeland, Fla., Mayor Gow Fields of his city’s prayers, which have led to an ongoing legal clash with an atheist group. The City Commission’s meeting agenda now begins with a disclaimer that any prayer offered before the meeting is the “voluntary offering of a private citizen” and not being endorsed by the commission (an unneccessary proviso. It should be enough to read the 1st amendment aloud and leave it at that.).
Citizens and groups made uncomfortable by the prayers (Discomfort is hardly a reason to make policies or laws. I have no interest at all in your comfort) say they’re fighting an inappropriate mix of religion and politics (inappropriate is a matter of taste. We should not be mixing comfort or appropriateness into how the law comes to bear).
“It makes me feel unwelcome,” said Tommy Coleman, the son of a church pianist and a self-described secular humanist who is challenging pre-meeting prayers in Tennessee’s Hamilton County.
Coleman, 28, and Brandon Jones, 25, are urging the county to adopt a moment of silence at its weekly meeting rather than beginning with a prayer. A number of groups are willing to help with complaints like those filed by Coleman and Jones.Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-founder of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, says complaints about the prayers are among the most frequent her organization gets.
Gaylor’s organization sends out letters when it is contacted by citizens, urging lawmakers to discontinue the prayers (free speech for thee but not for me...). Other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State send out similar letters.
Ian Smith, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says his organization has gotten more complaints in recent years. That could be because people are more comfortable standing up for themselves or more aware of their options, but Smith also said groups on the right have also promoted the adoption of prayers (Actually, religion haters make noise at a level much greater than their numbers, and the rest of us must kowtow to their feelings at the expense of religious liberty).
Brett Harvey, a lawyer at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian group that often helps towns defend their practices, sees it the other way. He says liberal groups have made a coordinated attempt to bully local governments into abandoning prayers, resulting in more cases.
“It’s really kind of a campaign of fear and disinformation,” Harvey said.
Courts around the country don’t agree on what’s acceptable or haven’t considered the issue (which again, is the problem. The court has no business deciding what acceptable speech is, or acceptable religious practices are. Such an idea ought to be summarily rejected by any thinking individual). In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court approved prayer before legislative meetings, saying prayers don’t violate the First Amendment’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another (this clause is always given preeminence, while the "free exercise thereof" clause is the ugly step sister.). But the case didn’t set any boundaries on those prayers, and today courts disagree on what is permissible (Ugh. There is its again. Can you imagine? The courts disagree on what a person can say? This ought to be outrageous!).
For example, one court ruling from 2011 says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational or non-sectarian. That means the prayer leader can use general words like “God” and “our creator” but isn’t supposed to use words like “Jesus” ‘’Christ” and “Allah” that are specific to a single religion (Ah yes. Here we have the censorship of speech in the name of "neutrality.").
The law is different in courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama: In 2008 a federal court of appeals overseeing those states upheld the prayer practice of Georgia’s Cobb County, which had invited a rotating group of clergy members to give prayers before its meetings. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often included references to Jesus (Jesus, the most offensive name on the planet. No one gets offended by the name of Zeus or Odin).
Towns that get complaints, meanwhile, have responded differently. Some have made changes, some willingly and others with misgivings. Other towns have dug in to defend their traditions.
Citizens in Lancaster, Calif., for example, voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to continue their prayers despite the threat of a lawsuit. Mayor R. Rex Parris says the city of 158,000 has already likely spent about $500,000 defending the practice, and he expects to spend more before the case is over. He said the issue is worth it because it has brought the town together (That's one of the strategies. Make it expensive to defend free speech, and you gain a defacto win for religion haters).
Other towns have gone the opposite route, stopping prayer altogether when challenged. Henrico County, Va., stopped prayers recently after lawmakers reviewed recent court decisions and determined it would be too difficult to police the content of prayers (Can you imagine? Government policing the content of prayers? So rather than engage in one egregious practice, they implement another: Banning free speech!).
Associated Press WASHINGTON — It happens every week at meetings in towns, counties and cities nationwide. A lawmaker or religious leader leads a prayer before officials begin the business of zoning changes, contract approvals and trash pickup (in other words, the practice of prayer in government has a history going back to the Founders. One must conclude that the Founders themselves were in violation of the constitution, or were ignorant of what it meant Thank goodness we have such a better understanding of the constitution than the Founders!).
But citizens are increasingly taking issue with these prayers, some of which have been in place for decades. At least five lawsuits around the country — in California, Florida, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee — are actively challenging premeeting prayers.
Lawyers on both sides say there is a new complaint almost weekly, though they don’t always end up in court. When they do, it seems even courts are struggling to draw the line over the acceptable ways to pray (Herein lies the problem. The courts' struggles are because they are involved! The government has absolutely no authority to speak at all regarding religion.). Some lawyers and lawmakers believe it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the differences. The court has previously declined to take on the issue (as well it should, except to strike down all previous lower court interventions into religious expression), but lawyers in a New York case plan to ask the justices in December to revisit it. And even if the court doesn’t take that particular case, it could accept a similar one in the future.
Lawmakers who defend the prayers cite the nation’s founders and say they’re following a long tradition of prayer before public meetings. They say residents don’t have to participate and having a prayer adds solemnity to meetings and serves as a reminder to do good work (to add to that, this is a free speech/freedom of assembly/religious freedom issue. "Congress shall make no law... is pretty clear, isn't it?).
“It’s a reassuring feeling,” said Lakeland, Fla., Mayor Gow Fields of his city’s prayers, which have led to an ongoing legal clash with an atheist group. The City Commission’s meeting agenda now begins with a disclaimer that any prayer offered before the meeting is the “voluntary offering of a private citizen” and not being endorsed by the commission (an unneccessary proviso. It should be enough to read the 1st amendment aloud and leave it at that.).
Citizens and groups made uncomfortable by the prayers (Discomfort is hardly a reason to make policies or laws. I have no interest at all in your comfort) say they’re fighting an inappropriate mix of religion and politics (inappropriate is a matter of taste. We should not be mixing comfort or appropriateness into how the law comes to bear).
“It makes me feel unwelcome,” said Tommy Coleman, the son of a church pianist and a self-described secular humanist who is challenging pre-meeting prayers in Tennessee’s Hamilton County.
Coleman, 28, and Brandon Jones, 25, are urging the county to adopt a moment of silence at its weekly meeting rather than beginning with a prayer. A number of groups are willing to help with complaints like those filed by Coleman and Jones.Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-founder of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, says complaints about the prayers are among the most frequent her organization gets.
Gaylor’s organization sends out letters when it is contacted by citizens, urging lawmakers to discontinue the prayers (free speech for thee but not for me...). Other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State send out similar letters.
Ian Smith, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says his organization has gotten more complaints in recent years. That could be because people are more comfortable standing up for themselves or more aware of their options, but Smith also said groups on the right have also promoted the adoption of prayers (Actually, religion haters make noise at a level much greater than their numbers, and the rest of us must kowtow to their feelings at the expense of religious liberty).
Brett Harvey, a lawyer at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian group that often helps towns defend their practices, sees it the other way. He says liberal groups have made a coordinated attempt to bully local governments into abandoning prayers, resulting in more cases.
“It’s really kind of a campaign of fear and disinformation,” Harvey said.
Courts around the country don’t agree on what’s acceptable or haven’t considered the issue (which again, is the problem. The court has no business deciding what acceptable speech is, or acceptable religious practices are. Such an idea ought to be summarily rejected by any thinking individual). In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court approved prayer before legislative meetings, saying prayers don’t violate the First Amendment’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another (this clause is always given preeminence, while the "free exercise thereof" clause is the ugly step sister.). But the case didn’t set any boundaries on those prayers, and today courts disagree on what is permissible (Ugh. There is its again. Can you imagine? The courts disagree on what a person can say? This ought to be outrageous!).
For example, one court ruling from 2011 says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational or non-sectarian. That means the prayer leader can use general words like “God” and “our creator” but isn’t supposed to use words like “Jesus” ‘’Christ” and “Allah” that are specific to a single religion (Ah yes. Here we have the censorship of speech in the name of "neutrality.").
The law is different in courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama: In 2008 a federal court of appeals overseeing those states upheld the prayer practice of Georgia’s Cobb County, which had invited a rotating group of clergy members to give prayers before its meetings. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often included references to Jesus (Jesus, the most offensive name on the planet. No one gets offended by the name of Zeus or Odin).
Towns that get complaints, meanwhile, have responded differently. Some have made changes, some willingly and others with misgivings. Other towns have dug in to defend their traditions.
Citizens in Lancaster, Calif., for example, voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to continue their prayers despite the threat of a lawsuit. Mayor R. Rex Parris says the city of 158,000 has already likely spent about $500,000 defending the practice, and he expects to spend more before the case is over. He said the issue is worth it because it has brought the town together (That's one of the strategies. Make it expensive to defend free speech, and you gain a defacto win for religion haters).
Other towns have gone the opposite route, stopping prayer altogether when challenged. Henrico County, Va., stopped prayers recently after lawmakers reviewed recent court decisions and determined it would be too difficult to police the content of prayers (Can you imagine? Government policing the content of prayers? So rather than engage in one egregious practice, they implement another: Banning free speech!).
No comments:
Post a Comment