Prayer OK in DC but not in schools

[Bayfieldgopher]

Help me out here. Why is prayer/use of the term God/etc restricted in public schools but allowed at governmental events such as the the Inauguration?

Isn't that a double standard? BTW, I am against the ban prayer in schools.

[Jike Spingleton]

I support the ban on school prayer, as long as those who want to pray are allowed to do so on their own. It does seem like a double standard, although I don't know the specifics of how an inauguration is planned. Is it up to the president-elect and his staff what to include?

Obama yesterday said something along the lines of "this is a country made up of Christians and Muslims, Jews and non-believers..." If there were ever to be a "non-believing" president, would there be a prayer at his or her inauguration? After all, "so help me God" wasn't initially included in the oath.

[Gopher4Life]

Prayer is not banned in public schools. Faculty and students may pray silently at any time or place and to their hearts' content...and I assume many do so.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

If I told you Kevin Payton prays would you quit taking cheap shots at the kid?

[Schnoodler]

The kids on KFAN last night had an interesting discussion about this. The point that was made that got me wondering if it is such a good idea the way they do it is that the one guy (non-believer agnostic/atheist guy) said the whole thing was great and for the first time he really felt like they were talking to him, except during that one part. He thought that if we are really trying to be an inclusive country then why such an exclusive message at such an important point?

It did get me thinking, if we are indeed a country of jews, muslims, hindus and christians then why wouldn't we be a bit more inclusive to them in this important government function. It kind of felt like lip service to the entirety of America and then an important message to the real Americans; the christians.

I do however think that at such a time as this with so many still believing Obama is a Muslim plant still it might not have been the right time to make that change. More fuel to that ignorant fire.

CRG: I saw Point Break when it came out in Monterey Ca. Brought back memories. It was back when I still thought that Keanu might turn into a pretty good actor.

[dbaldrich1]

To me there is no double-standard, because the public school day is a completely different animal than an inauguration ceremony.

Public schools are parts of the day to day workings of government, with a requirement that kids up to a certain age must attend them by law, regardless of religous affiliation. The legal restriction applies to public communal prayer in schools. There is no ban on private prayers of individuals. Having public communal Christian prayer as part of the school day can be seen as the state endorsing a specific religion, which is unconstitutional. No one's rights are being infringed upon by restricting public prayer. However, unless you want to require the Christian kids to either participate or sit idly while the non-Christians pray, then we can't require that non-Christians do so when Christians are praying.

On the other hand, an inauguration is a single celebratory event, where participation is completely voluntary. The prayer is not government sponsored, but rather an expression of the faith of the person being inaugurated. So, anyone choosing to go to the event implicitly accepts the fact that a prayer may occur, and so their rights aren't being infrigned upon.

[bigtenchamps1899]

The kids on KFAN last night had an interesting discussion about this. The point that was made that got me wondering if it is such a good idea the way they do it is that the one guy (non-believer agnostic/atheist guy) said the whole thing was great and for the first time he really felt like they were talking to him, except during that one part. He thought that if we are really trying to be an inclusive country then why such an exclusive message at such an important point?

It did get me thinking, if we are indeed a country of jews, muslims, hindus and christians then why wouldn't we be a bit more inclusive to them in this important government function. It kind of felt like lip service to the entirety of America and then an important message to the real Americans; the christians.

I do however think that at such a time as this with so many still believing Obama is a Muslim plant still it might not have been the right time to make that change. More fuel to that ignorant fire.

CRG: I saw Point Break when it came out in Monterey Ca. Brought back memories. It was back when I still thought that Keanu might turn into a pretty good actor.

i have been biting my tongue not wanting to get involved in this discussion but i am going to have to say something.

would i as a christian be offended if i was in turkey and there was a public prayer to muhammad. no, because isleam is part of their national fabric. same with israel. christianity is part of the national fabric of this country. i don't want to relegate that to the dust pile of history.

[Schnoodler]

I guess the question is what message are we trying to send. Are we a democracy or a theocracy? Are we a christian nation that merely tolerates others, like Turkey is a Muslim that is more moderate to others, or Israel is Jewish with tolerance to others. Just who are we?

It seems to me if we say we are one thing but do another, can we really say we're a nation for everybody. Can we say we're a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians if our actions say we're a Christian nation first. Has the great expiriment failed?

The great thing about Obama being elected is that it sounds like we're going to finally get back to and be guided by the ideals this country is founded on. This seems to be contrary to that message.

[Gopher4Life]

>>Are we a democracy or a theocracy?<<

We are a Republic that was founded by men who were, for the most part, Christians (of one denomination or another).

[From the Barn]

I guess the question is what message are we trying to send. Are we a democracy or a theocracy? Are we a christian nation that merely tolerates others, like Turkey is a Muslim that is more moderate to others, or Israel is Jewish with tolerance to others. Just who are we?

It seems to me if we say we are one thing but do another, can we really say we're a nation for everybody. Can we say we're a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians if our actions say we're a Christian nation first. Has the great expiriment failed?

The great thing about Obama being elected is that it sounds like we're going to finally get back to and be guided by the ideals this country is founded on. This seems to be contrary to that message.

Turkey is actually quite militantly secular, at least in terms of government.

[UpnorthGo4]

This is a very interesting issue that may be taken up by the Supreme Court in the near future.



Appeals Court Upholds Sectarian Prayers at Public Meetings

Special Report - October 31, 2008
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld the practice of allowing local clergy members to offer public prayers that invoke the name of Jesus or other religious deities at government meetings in Cobb County, Georgia. In the 2 to 1 decision on October 28, the federal appeals court rejected a claim by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that the “sectarian” prayers are unconstitutional and should be censored. The case, Pelphrey v. Cobb County, began in August 2005, when the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the county on behalf of seven residents, who objected to the county’s practice of allowing clergy from different religious traditions to open commission meetings with prayers that often included references to Jesus or other deities.

In the majority opinion affirming a lower court ruling, Judge William Pryor wrote: “The taxpayers argue that the Establishment Clause permits only nonsectarian prayers for the meetings of the commissions, but we disagree. Marsh v. Chambers makes clear that ‘[t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where . . . there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.’ The district court applied this standard, found that the practice of the County Commission had not been exploitive, and refused to parse the content of the prayers.” Judge Pryor concluded, “Whether invocations of ‘Lord of Lords’ or ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mohammed’ are ‘sectarian’ is best left to theologians, not courts of law.”

This summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—whose jurisdiction includes North Carolina—reached the opposite conclusion over the issue of sectarian prayers at public meetings. The appeals court ruled that the Fredericksburg, Virginia City Council may prohibit its members from opening their meetings with a prayer in Jesus’ name. A City Council member, the Reverend Hashmel Turner, brought the suit when he was excluded from the prayer rotation because he intended to pray “in Jesus’ name.” Rev. Turner challenged a non-sectarian prayer policy adopted by the City Council in 2005 in response to threats from the ACLU.

North Carolina is facing a similar challenge to sectarian prayers at public meetings from the ALCU and its allies. In March 2007, the ACLU-NC and the Winston-Salem chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against Forsyth County, alleging that the county’s policy of allowing various clergy members from the community to offer sectarian prayers before public meetings is unconstitutional because it allows clergy members to pray to specific deities. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing Forsyth County in the case, which is Joyner v. Forsyth County. In May 2007, the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners approved a model prayer policy drafted by ADF that allows clergy from the community to offer sectarian invocations at public meetings on a rotating basis. The case is still pending in federal court.

“Public prayers offered by private individuals who are invited to give the invocation do not need to be censored or prohibited, and to do so would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution,” said Tami Fitzgerald, legal counsel for the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “This week’s decision by the 11th Circuit to uphold the practice of allowing sectarian prayers before public meetings is a victory for religious freedom. However, since there is disagreement between the 4th Circuit and 11th Circuit on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to take up a public prayer case to settle the law in this area.”

Copyright © 2008. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.

[Schnoodler]

>>Are we a democracy or a theocracy?<<

We are a Republic that was founded by men who were, for the most part, Christians (of one denomination or another).


As strange as it may seem, I don't think they were. The general citizenry was for sure but I think the brain trust AKA founding fathers were Deists. They were strongly opposed to tyranny in any form including the church. They were also very skeptical of christianity, not of christ, but of 'the tale' which they believed to have been perverted to subjugate the masses.

They were inclined to believe in the great watchmaker version of God and not the bibilical/church version. They believed in one God, no version was bigger than the one. All version were somewhat less to them than the truth and were not to be believed on faith alone. He was evidenced in the world about them and any writings that were contrary to what they could see and touch and reason through they tended to discount as being contrary to God and not evidence of. Christianity did not mesh well with their thought process, although they had less of a problem with the OT.


So, no christianity was not meant to be included it was specifically meant to be excluded. Else they only built a framework for religous tyranny which they specifically were trying to avoid.

And to eliminate one useless post, google it yourself.

[Gopher4Life]

Schnoodler,

You're drinking the kool-aid that the secularists so freely serve up.

America was founded almost entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.

[hyaluronic]

G4L,

I am one of the secularists you speak of, however, there is strong evidence that many of the prominent founding fathers were either deists, or highly critical of Christianity (even if they may have been of one Christian denomination or another). Of those that fall in the latter group, I would say that two explanations are possible: a.) There has always been some feud between the various sects, and that could explain their criticisms; or b.) a keen sense of the halo effect. What I mean by the latter is that people want to elect, and trust in, people who believe the same things they do. A person who had broad goals, and cared more about the ends than the means, may be willing to put on a bit of a front, and their true beliefs would be revealed via personal letters. Personal letters is where you will find the majority of evidence for deism among founding fathers, though that is not entirely true in all cases. You may think I am out of bounds, but most studies place the non-believers at somewhere between 8 and 20 percent of the populace in the United States, yet only one representative or senator has explicitly stated they have no religious beliefs. That would be one heck of a statistical anomaly if there is only one non-believer in office. There are likely more, they just hold it tightly to their chest.

[Gopher4Life]

I'm saying that America was founded to a great extent so that we could be free to practice religion (and that religion was Christianity), not so that we could be free from religion. However, I agree with you that modern America is trending toward hell.

[Schnoodler]

You need to do some more reading G4L. This government was born of the enlightenment, and natural law, not the bible. It's pretty standard history.

As such, not as protection of religion, but as protection from it. Tyranny was the greatest fear of the founding fathers. The were terrified of the sway of Rome and the anglican church and wanted to avoid it's form of tyranny in the US.

[Roy Christensen]

References to God, Jesus, Allah or Jah Rastafari probably have no place in our government. However for political reasons it is necessary to pander to those with religious beliefs.

[Schnoodler]

shhh

[Costa Rican Gopher]

"CRG: I saw Point Break when it came out in Monterey Ca. Brought back memories. It was back when I still thought that Keanu might turn into a pretty good actor."

I'll pass on Keanu, but I can't get enough Gary Busey.... No homo

[diehard]

Ahhh, Monterey. Spent a couple of tours at the Presidio, Defense Language Institute. Truly the favorite years of my youth. Rep Panetta was from there. Met with him a few times. He tops my list of good men. Clint serving us beers at his Hogsbreath Inn. Jogging behind Rachael Welsh on the beach. Dinner with Kim Novak. Jogging 12 mile Drive by Pebble Beach, Spy Glass, and the Lone Cypress. Yeah, I'd do it again. As long as Rev Wright and Father What's his name weren't there, I could care less. No hate, please.

[Schnoodler]

You were not enlisted. Officer??

Korean Language 1992. Unfortunately did not hob knob like you seem to have, but still introduced me to my favorite place in the US. Plus my daughter was born at Fort Ord for $17. A pretty good deal. I still try to get back there now and then. I think I've found my way back a half a dozen times or so.

[Gopher4Life]

Schnoodler,

>>You need to do some more reading G4L...<<

And you should be more careful about what you read. And avoid the kool-aid while reading. Your position that the American colonies were founded by those who preferred natural law over the Bible is absurd. They crossed a treacherous ocean to escape religious intolerance, not religion itself.

>>As such, not as protection of religion, but as protection from it.<<

Young America wanted protection from those who would constrain religion. They were clearly people of faith, as much as that repulses today's secular humanists.

[walleyedude]

References to God, Jesus, Allah or Jah Rastafari probably have no place in our government. However for political reasons it is necessary to pander to those with religious beliefs.

I agree.

I also think our politicians should place their hand on the Constitution instead of the bible.

I support full separation of church and state.

[Schnoodler]

Young America wanted protection from those who would constrain religion.

And just who might that be? Other religions?? Ones who gained a foothold in government maybe? Ones that sought to dictate which religions were acceptable and which were not, and who to believe and what to believe in, and even how to go about doing it. Protection of religion, is protection from other religions. nothing more nothing less.

It's clear what they were trying to avoid. It's disturbing when i see religous groups doing end arounds trying to do exactly what the founding fathers went to great lengths to avoid.

Seperation of church and state is the best protection of religion that has ever been devised.

[diehard]

"Seperation of church and state is the best protection of religion that has ever been devised."

Amen.

Enlisted. No ROTC here. CX, including intermediate and AE later, but all before you. Rock climbing on the cliffs at Big Sur on weekdays and Yosemite on weekends. Yeah, I'd still go back again, alas, I am just an old worn out man.