Think it is inappropriate.

Should never happen!

i seem to remember some flap recently about one of the county commissioners wanting to start their meeting with a prayer. i am pretty sure that was shot down.

that don't really bother me. When it happens I'll look around and play "spot the atheist" who is usually also looking around for the same reason.

I met a former girlfriend a long time ago doing just this at a wedding. Everyone was head down mumbling except the two of us. we wound up getting together later at the reception.

That's hilarious. Hey, instead of christian mingle you've got spot the atheist.

'spot the atheist' . . . that is hilarious!

and was seated next to the guest of honor. I didn't lower my head, but probably no one noticed.

When my oldest was graduating high school, his private, secular school also held a baccalaureate, which is (or was for them) primarily a somewhat religion-focussed service. I gave my son the option to opt out, but he was fine with it, so we went. At the beginning when we were asked to lower our head for prayer, I didn't, and also one of son's classmates up on the stage didn't. We both grinned at each other. To this day I think very fondly of that young man.

A moment of silence, maybe, but, no, religion has no place in government.

Have your silence while you're prepping in the parking lot.

If the rules of the City Council allow for a Christian prayer, it is allowed. If one or more members of the Council disagree, they have the right to not participate.

As long as the city doesn't attempt to enforce Christianity as an official religion, IMO it is not violating the Establishment Clause.

it's a function of government. I find it very inappropriate. I sat on a council for eight years and was Mayor of my town. For ceremonies like Veterans Day and Memorial Day and 9-11 we would have a invocation by the local clergy, taking a round robin of participation of local houses of worship and such invocations were ecumenical; but council meetings are government business; something completely different.

Is it allowed or isn't it? What government body has the authority to enforce the ban, if there actually is one?

Christians use their first amendment rights to assert their dominance over everybody else. It's a means of intimidation. I have told my father countless times that Christians probably wouldn't run into as much resistance if they were open to allowing other forms of expression in the public square. How likely is that?

OTOH - if only Christians live in the town I guess it is ok.

Likelihood town is 100% Christian - zero.

Everything that is not explicitly prohibited by law is allowed.

What level of government would have the authority to prohibit a city council from having prayers? Here in California we have two general kinds of municipalities - Charter cities and general law cities. The state's Government Code spells out where the state's powers begin and end - Charter cities have wide latitude on what rules and ordinances they can adopt to govern themselves. There is nothing in the Code that I am aware of that prohibits prayer in a council session of either type of city.

Being inappropriate is one thing - Being prohibited is quite another. To me "not allowed" means prohibited.

are simply wrong. What is the deal?

If you can't, then it's not settled.

If one counsel member got up and said hey, I'm a Muslim, so I should get to do a prayer to Allah, what would happen? Or an atheist objected, saying the counsel should make up its own mind without reference to anyone's God?

It's that simple.

They could pray to themselves, but they insist on forcing it on everybody else and opening the meeting with it.

Or to prohibit any individual member from remaining silent, or from saying a prayer of his or her choice.

And city council opened with a muezzin's call to prayer?


I'm sure you'd just sit there silently while the elected government officials invoked the name of the one true god Allah and his prophet Mohammed to bless the proceedings.

...to reality.

Being a member of a city council does not take away a person's right to pray. If members of the city council want to pray at the start of a session, it is their right to do so. I don't care what religion they are members of. As long as they don't try to compel ME to observe their religion, I don't care.

And you didn't answer my question.

I wouldn't care any more than if they were all Christians and wanted to open their sessions with a Christian prayer.

As long as they aren't trying to force ME to practice their personal religion, or try to spend public money on a religious observance, I don't care.

You don't give up the right to practice your personal religion when you get elected to public office.

First, obviously, First Amendment.

Beyond that, I don't want the city council or whomever to feel that what they do is not completely up to them. The suggestion that someone they are dependent of god to arrive at good decisions dodges responsibility, even if it is sub-consciously.

Fold your arms and pray to the sky god. Yep. Went to a council meeting and when this shit started,made damn sure I made enough noise when leaving the Chamber. Talk about pissing off the Mayor,got to love it. Magic Underwear my ass!!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
if the government says no prayers before a city council meeting then the government has prohibited the free exercise of a religion. sorry atheists but you're wrong

That wall breaks down if you have public officials praying at a government event. By your logic we should allow teacher led prayer in schools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
there's no "wall" here. it says the government cant establish a religion nor can it stop a religion. there is no "wall"
feel free to point to a"wall" in that simple sentence

That's why it's not allowed in public schools any more. People in that locality deserve to feel their religion is not excluded by the counsel practicing another one.

it is not what the constitution says.

Furthermore the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that you can't have teachers, in their roles as agents of the State leading prayers in school, this seems to be a simple extension of that logic.

Expressed in the Constitution?

Interesting.

and that says the gov cant establish one or prohibit one. it says nothing of a wall or that prayer =establishment. feel free to show me one

Even the SCOTUS has cited that letter in some of their opinions.

Read the whole thing, not just the part you like. Go pray on your own time.

that pertains to religion but for you here's the "whole thing"
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.

no where does prayer=establishment in the "whole thing" and regarding establishment this amendment said that the government shall make no laws regarding the establishment

no where in the "whole thing" is a wall between church and state
quit making things up

Officially opening city council meetings with a government led Christian prayer basically amounts to publicly establishing Christianity as the official religion of the city council.

interpretations. like when someone has to use the word "basically". using the word basically like when someone says "....government led Christian prayer basically amounts to ...." means you are taking out whatever finese there is is and boiling it down to what it means to you. but never the less the 1st amendemnt says say . the congress shall not make laws establishing or prohibiting religion. having a religious prayer before any meeting is not making laws establishing or prohibiting any religion therefore it is constitutional.
i know the atheists and others dont like it but just cause you dont like it doesnt make it unconstitutional.
remember the 1st admendment is about creating laws not saying prayers. there is no 'wall' set up there except in regards to law making.

The 14th Amendment provides for that. The prayer cannot be used to establish Christianity as the local religion.

see post 32 -

To a flag? That's what they do in totalitarian countries.

No

It is against the federal and probably the state constitution. It's a power play of right wingers to hang onto an old custom.

... it would involve a lot of unintelligible yelling, and maybe a large gong carried in by assistants.

"Let us pray..."

So I imagine it's OK for city councils etc. So long as nobody is being forced to participate, of course.

that people do not feel intimidated. Evangelicals want to make sure the public damn well knows even if they don't recognize it that this is a Christian nation. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are being used to intimidate and bully. That is why prayer was taken out of public schools and does not belong in government at all.

Say that someone in the chamber - be they a city council person or a member of the public attending - decided that they wanted to make a phone call, or get up and pour themselves a cup of coffee, or simply sit and loudly rustle papers or speak to the person sitting next to them.

Technically, they have the right to do those things, because they cannot be compelled to participate in the prayer.

That said, what are the chances that the individual would face, at the least, subtle condemnation for 'disrupting' the prayer - or, at the other end, actually be told to leave or be removed from the chambers?

The argument would likely be that the individual is disrupting the meeting, which gets the council off the hook - but in actuality, the only thing they are disrupting is the prayer.

The alternative to disrupting - which 99.9% of people probably do - is to sit quietly until it's over.

In my mind, that is forcing someone to participate, because the alternatives are to wind up either in trouble or actually kicked out the door.

An analogy (admittedly poor) would be forced attendance at AA meetings (and this has come up in court). AA uses the same sort of vague 'non-language' to define the spiritual element of it's program that city councils use to define their opening prayers (i.e., "we don't say Jesus, so it could be anything), but adherence to that 'step' is necessary to completion. A lot of people who do not have a belief in things spiritual (be it a higher power or a magic tree) end up using all sort of mental gymnastics to accommodate that sticky step - and they shouldn't have to do so. Yet, courts routinely make attendance at AA a condition of release for people convicted of crimes. What is the alternative? Going back to jail?

When individuals are compelled to accommodate something like public prayer in order to participate in the process of the public meeting, they are being forced to participate in the prayer in order to participate in the meeting. Why should they have to 'sit silently' until the faithful have completed their ritual?

Why do non-believers have to be so much more polite than believers?

to either include different kinds of invocations or eliminate them.

Maybe you should ask them to consider one of these options?

Period.

I agree they shouldn't do it, but I think the potential negative unintended consequences of a law prohibiting them from doing it could be far worse than some people having their feelings hurt. If you city council prays at the beginning of their sessions, you can petition them for redress. You can take it to court and claim they're attempting to establish a municipal religion, but you probably won't get very far.

If you don't want your city council declaring that one particular faith is the official religion of the city, or you don't want your public funds spent building and maintaining a religious monument on public land, those are entirely different issues.

opens the session with a non-denominational prayer. Assuming it's inclusive so as note to promote one religion and or absence there of over another. Then I don't see a problem with it.

No prayer to any kind of deity can be inclusive to all religion. What if I'm a Buddhist, then I don't believe in any kind of supreme being so even a non-denominational prayer isn't inclusive to me because my religion doesn't pray to gods. It also does not say "gods" so it is promoting the three monotheistic faiths over all others.

You may have to work harder at being inclusive but I don't think it's an impossible task. In the case of the Chaplains office I believe to further inclusive they have on some days held Muslim prayers. As long as every major group feels represented. (The Pirate Prayer is questionable, the Holy Canabinoids are fringe IMO)

Then again when I was with the Scouts I accepted the Church of "I think I'll have another Beer" as meeting their requirement.

A public meeting held in a taxpayer funded facility should, in no circumstances, open with a prayer.

because there is nothing unconstitutional about prayer in such circumstances as long as it's not specific to any religion. You do realize that the House opens every day that it's in session with a prayer, right?

Sometimes I really wonder about the things that DU gets all hot and bothered over.

Using any publicly-funded organization to promote ANY religiious observation of any kind is wrong.

Once again if I'm a Buddhist I won't be praying to any gods so your prayers to "God" is specific to the monotheistic faiths.

I draw the line at snake handling, however.

I don't like it but I'm not going to make a stink about it and get the fundies all stirred up and defensive. It's a pretty minor thing to sit through.

so is the pledge. I have said the pledge more times this year than all the rest of my life.

Not saying it should be or not, but Congress, so you know, also opens with an invocation and so does every state legislature.

Good luck getting rid of that.

There was an ethically challenged Mayor who pulled in a priest for the specific reason that the priest came from a foreign country that the city was trying to develop a sister city program. That priest did a full benediction for the event. Now, imagine having to convince an entire community that bought into this Mayor's schemes. They now have a priest's benediction to sort through! These people are not capable of believing the worst of the people they elect. Especially when the crooked politician is pushing a big scheme. The people don't have the critical thinking skills to separate the fact that fraud and conspiracy can be behind what's happening, because all they know is that it has a priest's benediction, and they cannot possibly believe that there is something corrupt taking place, because, let's face it, the priest has been used as a sap.

City Council should be open to everybody and an open prayer takes away from that. As a Catholic Christian, I wouldn't want to attend a meeting where the opening prayer was Muslim or Hindu. Do onto others.....

Government is for all the people, not just the Christian people or those who believe in a deity.

I would be there for other business anyway.

rain down on your town. Apparently he needs constant reassurance and supplications.

Hell, I'm not even omnipotent and I don't feel the need for everyone to constantly prove they adore and worship me. You gotta wonder about people who think such a being is "enlightened".

Julie

so it just keeps being the way things are done. Check out the religious people's reactions in situations where people have said it isn't right. It's scary how unhinged some of these people are. All in the name of religion.

We need to stop treating religious beliefs like they deserve special consideration.