Atheist's outburst at Polk (FL) meeting gets him arrested

Source: Gainesville Sun

As Bartow police dragged the president of Atheists of Florida out of the Polk County School District auditorium before Tuesday's School Board meeting, he yelled, "Prayer has no place in government! Prayer has no place in government!"... Kieffer stood near School Board members while Wachs took photographs during the prayer before the meeting began. He also spoke as the minister was speaking. After the invocation he was rebuked by board member Frank O'Reilly for the disruption.

Wyant said that is when Kieffer yelled, "Prayer has no place in government! Prayer has no place in government!"

Murphy asked Bartow police officers Jason Griffith and Julio Pagan to remove Kieffer from the auditorium.

Kieffer braced himself against the officers as they dragged him out of the room, Wyant said.

After board Chairman Kay Fields told Kieffer to leave, he said he wasn't violating any laws because the meeting hadn't officially started.

"It has now," Fields said, and she slammed down her gavel...

Read more: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110223/ARTICLES/110229794/1169?Title=Atheist-s-outburst-at-Polk-meeting-gets-him-arrested-

---

Someone get this guy a good lawyer!

I swear these religious people in this country have no respect for the Constitution only for their make believe! SAD!

"Police charged John Albert Kieffer, 61, of Tampa, with disorderly conduct, resisting an officer without violence and possession of prescription medication without proof."


Resisting withOUT violence.
Possession of prescription meds without "proof."

These are the charges that freedom of speech will get you.

He wasn't arrested for his beliefs at all.

He could've been yelling, "The British are Coming! The British are Coming!" and he would still have been arrested.

No one has a right to attend an event and then prevent it from occurring. One person's rights end where another's begins. The others had a right to attend and enjoy their event.

Not Tehran?

would do the same? Here in Fairbanks, I watched a Planned Parenthood protestor (of the bible-beating kind) toss paint on a patient. The patient was arrested for disturbing the peace! This has been years ago, but since the Pipeline years and all the fundies who moved up for the "big bucks", "live and let live" Alaska just doesn't exist anymore.

BTW, where in the Great Land are you?

And causing a scene in public.

Don't they get step by step, how-to guides to interrupt rallies?

WTF?

I live here in the South & have my entire life so I know!! Folks down here are very proud of their utter ignorance & they believe the most fucked up things!

could hold enough House districts to keep the House of Representative firmly in the grip of the GOP for a long time! Maybe we can hold the Senate...However, as long as rural America or at least the "Take America Back" (to the 19th Century) crowd holds the House then America is being held hostage IMHO!

We will not be able to move this country into the 21st Century.

...Socialist Party of America back in the early 1900's.

Wonder what America will look like in 2100? I wish I could live for another 500yrs or longer just to see what happens...I think about that all the time. I love to read about history, especially the founding fathers, and I wonder what they would say if they saw today what they created? Or if they saw we have an African American President! LOL!

In those days, members of the working class were far more likely to read newspapers and books, I believe.

We need to figure out how to win them back.

Talking bout YOU, Redding! (A town just north of Sacramento, where a few years ago a mixed-race couple found a cross burned on their lawn. Yeah, in the 21st century!)

Not to mention Imperial and San Bernadino counties which could rival any backwoods Alabama patch of land you wanna show me!

Even in SF, I don't rant too much about Fundies, nor ask people to explain why they believe a Supernatural being created the universe when facts pretty well contradict all their rhetoric. In all of the US, Atheism and Agnosticism are like being Gay in the 19th century: the humanism that dare not speak its name.

I live in eastern Madera County (Oakhurst - southern rim of Yosemite) and I have seen the KKK there in their white robes standing on the major street corner and yelling about local issues to all of the people passing by in their cars. And I do not believe those dudes were bused in, either. Yesseree, Oakhurst is home to right wing, red neck, neo-fascist, Nazi America, just a' clinging to their guns and religion. There is one family there from the Middle East who is trying to eek out an existence by operating a gas station/convenience store. Besides myself, the only customers they have are the tourists who pass through town on their way into Yosemite. I don't talk *at all* to anyone about how different I am, but it doesn't matter because they can all tell, just by looking at me. DU is almost my only link to reality in this life.

:toast: :toast:

Just goes to show, clueless, uneducated people are all over! Here in SF, I'm comfortable with stating my opinions, knowing 90 percent of the people around me agree (except about being Agnostic, the last holdout I guess!) But you're the real brave one, living in Wingnutland. Wishing you the best!

Rural USA is a scary place

But if the meeting had not officially started, then let 'em pray...

and then stand up and read from Darwin. Request a Muslim prayer. A Wiccan incantation. Or everyone's horoscope, and the meeting's chart explained.

Different context, but it applies. There are better ways to do things. As someone else noted, this is the teabagger way of doing things. We get further when we put a little more thought into how we try to change things.

So few zealots in the U.S. these days.

His disruptive behavior would get him removed from any meeting on the planet (except maybe a teabagger rally), and he wasn't arrested until he refused a police request to leave and go home.

Yes, "twisting and squirming" to avoid the handcuffs will net you a "resisting arrest". And yes, having a prescription medication on you out of the pill bottle with no proof of prescription will net another charge. I'm actually surprised that they didn't charge him with stiffer offenses.

That being said, we ARE stifling free speech and dissent, police these days are more interested in "Command and Control" rather than "Serve and Protect", and prayer has no business in any government meeting unless I am given equal time to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Protest your asses off, dissent early and often. But unless you WANT to go to jail (which can be a valid tactic), do it smart, do it civil. This guy was neither.

:eyes:

Therefore the only alternative is...? :shrug:

Unfortunately, it isn't always a winning strategy.

I do agree it sees like he was going out of the way to cause a problem. I also remember that recent Pensacola Case where the shooting took place. If I was security, I would be just a tad worried about any crazies in my meeting as well.

I certainly do not think a valid solution is to emulate them. Predicating our action on theirs seems self-defeating.

...that civility is always required, but you'd better have a damned good reason (read: strategy) for violating basic civility if you want my There are times to shut down a meeting (or a city), there are times when civil disobedience is required.

This does not feel like one of those times. The guy was just being a belligerent, disruptive jerk.

And I refuse to lower myself to the shouting, screaming, and vileness that somehow passes for debate and discussion these days.

Doesn't that seem the most reasonable thing to you? I'd vote for one in a heartbeat just to have some balance (and I'm a christian). The nutjobs in this country have way too much control.

as well as being an unmarried childless woman living with her (male) partner in the Prime Minister's official residence; as she should. She probably would not get far in US politics.

on edit - I am an atheist too.

Peace

I'm all for in-your-face hell-raising, but issues like this are best solved with letter writing and lawsuit filing. We--as atheists--kind of need to stay above the fray to be most effective.

And Welcome to DU!

Just because he's an atheist doesn't mean he's being persecuted for his beliefs.

Seems like he screwed up.

and I approve of his message delivery. If he had not done so, he would have never been heard, and it is more of an issue that Mrs. Fields is the one in the wrong.

Whatever the folk in Bartow do, doesn't much affect him as a Tampa resident

As a philosophical matter, I agree that government agencies oughtn't conduct public prayers. But the article says the school board has adopted a policy which allows private individuals to pray before school board meetings, with a disclaimer that the board does not and by cannot endorse religious views. That seems reasonably clear and appropriate

Most people, I think, will look at this story and see him as a self-righteous jerk, butting into matters that don't much concern him and hoping to offend folk who haven't done him any real harm

Most of Polk is in Congressional District 12 which includes parts of Hillsborough County. So there is some political overlap between the two counties. This being a school board meeting does it make more local but Bartow is the county seat so maybe the meeting had further reaching implications.

the geographical boundaries of Florida's 67 counties"
Florida school districts
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Florida_school_districts

Polk County School Board Adding Prayer Disclaimer
Note on meeting agendas, moving invocations before fall of gavel among strategies considered to avoid lawsuit.
By Merissa Green
THE LEDGER
Published: Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
BARTOW | The Polk County School Board is adding a disclaimer to its agendas beginning Tuesday. The disclaimer reads: "Voluntary invocation may be offered before the opening of the School Board meeting by a private citizen. The views or beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed nor approved by the School Board, and the Board is not allowed, by law, to endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other speaker." School Board lawyer Wes Bridges told the board last month .. "What we're trying to do is make sure the School Board doesn't promote or establish a particular religion" ... He said it could cost the board $300,000 to $500,000 in legal fees to fight a lawsuit ... http://www.theledger.com/article/20110205/NEWS/102055024


So Florida's Polk County School Board seems to be just what the name suggests, namely, the School Board for the School District comprising Polk County. The gentleman discussed in the OP lives in a different county and seems to have attended simply for the purpose of being unpleasant. The Board, in the face of a lawsuit, apparently concedes it cannot endorse particular religious beliefs; I suppose the plaintiffs in the lawsuit can amend their complaint to argue that the Board's approach to the prayer issue is a fictitious and does not resolve the issue, but the explicit statement on the agenda does clarify the separation somewhat

But no complaints about Congress? It opens its sessions with a prayer and always has. It has official chaplains who are on the taxpayer payroll.

and they're all officers (and -whispering- many are assholes)

Way back it was more than $300,000 in salary + benefits!

C-span used to report on this and the slaries.

I say, if the Congress wants Chaplains, let them pay for them -- and put them

in the chapel -- not on the floor of House/Senate -- at a dais!!

This isn't just happening in Red State America. Congress maintains a Chaplains office and begins it's sessions with non-denominational prayer as well. Personally I don't think an All Inclusive moment of silence/reflection is a bad thing. It's when it starts to become a single religion prayer that I become concerned.

And you're right it's defined as "ceremonial deism", but it sure would be nice if we had people in government who didn't need some incantation to start doing the peoples' business.

Prayer and religion has been a part of government in the US as long as there has been a US

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774 The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

And women should not have been given the right to vote.

:rofl:

just because we've always done it this way is not in and of itself a good reason to continue doing it that way.

The harm caused by slavery is plainly evident to everyone. The harm caused by people saying a prayer is...what, exactly? An atheist gets his or her feelings hurt for 30 seconds? Not comparable.

That's pretty serious harm.

people still believe in fictitious deity(ies). It almost makes me doubt evolution.
http://www.godisimaginary.com

That takes a faith in human perception that I just can't justify.
Science used to believe that insects came from spontaneous generation too.
Just another part of God's creation in a universe that is predisposed by His Design to have life.
Fictitious is dependent upon one's ability to product facts, and it takes more than comments to disprove God.

There is none.

It is not on anyone else to prove that you are wrong.

I've told you, I accept Christ's Word as Truth. I read and decided for myself.
I only ask you to do the same, if you can't, at least give me my right as an American to believe as I wish.

No one.

By the way, the universe is billions of years old and there are billions of galaxies and trillions of planets. It's a big place. The last 2,000 years were a blip. This is why conventional religion is utterly laughable to me:

That's funny when you think a society that has only developed in the last 2000 years has the depth to judge.
Well, perhaps more laughable than funny. Keep to your faith, false as it is.

"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."

Notice that the 1st part about establishing a religion in no way reduces the power of the statements following.
So if a person prays in public, they are allowed their freedom of speech, no matter where it is.
Also notice that Polk Co School District is not Congress, so their removal of someone behaving loudly and rudely is in no way the establishment of a law respecting religion.
Keep this in mind next time someone other than Congress does this.

What a strange idea of proof.

I already told you to go read and judge for yourself. If you haven't, you based your decision on insufficient evidence.
If you have, then all you're doing now is harassing those who do believe.
Perhaps you enjoy that kind of reaction, if so, you have your reward.
You better never believe any human then, they react.

As a child, I believed that the Old Testament was the word of God. With maturity came the understanding that belief, no matter how intense, is not proof.

I have no interest in harassing anyone, no matter what absurdities they believe in. However, as I said, when they try to insert their beliefs into government, that becomes a major problem for all of us.

Condecension and declaring people's beliefs as "absurdities" can easily be considered harassment.
As for people inserting their beliefs into government, that's how people show what they want and how they are represented, whether those beliefs are based on religion or something else.
It may be a major problem for whoever this "us" is you presume to represent, however it is not illegal.

And you're defining harassment so widely that the word become meaningless.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassed
"ha·rassment n.
Synonyms: harass, harry, hound, badger, pester, plague
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper."
The radical Athiest harassed the Christian because he felt the Christian had no right to free speech.
That last example is mine , though I'll admit free dictionary inspired me.

We're talking about members of a government body praying as part of that body's meetings.

Lest any mere criticism be termed HARASSMENT...

Which is what guarantees our right to freedom of thought and personal conscience --

it fact, it is what guarantees you your right to practice your religion!!

It's why we don't have a Muslim state religion, for instance --

And why you're not forced to worship a goddess!!

Respect it -- YOU may need it some day!!


:evilgrin:

I'm not making claims that I see a unicorn or an alien or a god.

You can believe what I say, or what I read, or what anyone else says or does, or not.
But you can't compel a thing.
I wonder, do you go after believers of other kinds, doubting them and asking for a burden of proof?
There's plenty of message boards on the web, I'm sure you can find most any group you wish to question.
Have you? As for me, I believe what Christ says, read His words yourself and judge for yourself.
I can't do that for you, and it wouldn't be proper for me to do so.

I've also read Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Scandinavian mythology, the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and so on. They are all stories that humans tell each other. There's nothing wrong with storytelling -- but confusing fiction with truth gets problematic.

However, no on is taking away your "right" to believe these stories and myths actually happened. If you are able to go through those mental gymnastics, well, hey, that's your deal.

Which means no one allowed to pray. If you don't want to pray, ponder instead.
If you support the guy in the original post, then you support taking away the rights of those who pray to be able participate in government.
No one is taking away rights......yet. But the intention is obvious and flatly stated.
Do you support him? If so, then yes, you're supporting taking away rights. First most, freedom of speech and association.
By the way, you keep using this word "myths", it shows how much of your beliefs are also based on faith in what you can't prove.
At least your prejudice is open though, that's honest.

Nobody is saying those who pray can't participate in government. Please, such drama and twisting of reality. :rofl:

I'm noticing this is a tactic of yours, do try not to become predictable. You're hardly the first to use those tactics.
Believe what you want or don't, but prayer is speech. As long as people aren't forced to do it or forbidden is all that matters.
A communal prayer before an assembly comes under that category, I wouldn't like being forced to do that either.
You might want to consider how easily things can be labeled prayer. You may find more than just Christians being silenced once things go that far.
Now go ahead, laugh some more, but this is a deadly serious game being played.

An assembly cannot be held hostage to your personal religious beliefs!!

When organized patriarchal religion stops it's "gameplaying" with the lives of

women, homosexuals and so many more -- maybe we'll begin to get somewhere peacefully!!

wanted to come in with their rug and pray while Christians were forced to listen?

Suppose Wiccans wanted to have a short ceremony while Christians were forced to listen?

Get the picture?



If you've read Thomas Jefferson's letters and quotes, you'll know that he meant freedom from religion in regards to its role in government and in any institution government controls. This is not a theocracy.

it's simply a book like any other --

vile and violent -- and disgusting -- but a book written by men and

re-written by men --

Most religious people I encounter only claim to have Faith. Never heard any of them talk about proof. But maybe that cause I live in New England.

We can only determine what we consider to be acceptable evidence for belief/faith. What criterion someone else uses is beyond our control. Attempting to control what 7 Billion other people believe can drive you nuts. Assuming we can make reasonable accommodation for each other. I don't care what someone else believes. Be it any of the worlds religions, that blue houses are prettier or belief in having another beer.

Someone tells you they are going to do something, until they do it, you're depending upon them in faith.
Your accommodation is based on faith. Faith isn't control nor an attempt to control.
You have faith in the weather people, in politicians if they'll do as they say, even if the paper boy,
if you still have one, is going to put the paper on the porch.
Faith is commonplace, I find it amazing that some act like it's such an unreasonable thing.

But faith in invisible sky daddies that you've never seen is more on par with faith in the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus. (Of course, most kids grow out of such faith as they grow older and wiser...)

Because now this conversation has drifted into name calling and disrespect.
And actually, your assumption about kids growing out of faith is wrong.
However, I'm sure Bush and the oil corp boys will enjoy having the voters you've help leech from the Dems.
I'm pretty thick skinned, so your typical attitude won't change my politics.
But you're not doing the Dems any favors.
"sky daddies", oh yeah, you're a paragon of mature debate, aren't you?

All I'm saying is that I think your God is a figment of your imagination. I didn't attack you personally or call you names.

You're reaction to that is just as bad as the "peaceful" Muslims who threaten to kill cartoonists because they mock their Prophet Mohammad.

If that's all it takes to cause Christians to switch their votes to the GOP, I'd question what values they had to begin with.

Do you think saying my belief is a "figment" of my imagination isn't an attack?
Then you go ahead and compare me to another group of people, assuming that they are all the same as the radicals.
The GOP will happily take the votes you've driven to them with your intolerance.
When, not IF, the GOP has yet another proxy war, odds are good all will have the chance to die, Christians, Athiests Muslims, everyone.
Question what you wish, apparently your only real wish is to denigrate people who believe differently than you.
You just haven't figured out yet you've lost more than you gained.
This is politics, these is much to be won and lost with the wrong words.
You can stand your ground without belittling people.

Are your beliefs not strong enough to stand being challenged? I mean, its not like you wear your Christianity on your sleeve or anything... (oh wait, your avatar...)

Next thing I know you'll be calling me a bigot.

I freely confess: I'm also "intolerant" of people who believe in Zeus, Apollo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. So sue me.

Guess I just have a low tolerance thresh-hold for silly beliefs that people won't defend or justify.

If you bring your personal "god" beliefs out into the public square you can

expect questioning and challenging of them --

If that's not what you want, then you're in the wrong place -- !!

You may have "faith" you're succeed at something -- but if you don't

it is unlikely you will blame your "god."

Faith is not fact --

i'm not a beleiver but i won't begrudge people who are.

There doesn't have to be. Those who assert that such things exist are the ones who need to provide proof.

Of course they're free to believe in anything without proof. No one is trying to stop them. But if they insist on the right to have those baseless beliefs be taken seriously by the nation, and to have public meetings opened with prayers to their gods, then it becomes a very serious issue for all of us.

However, people are allowed to insist whatever they please, as long as Congress doesn't do it, you're safe.
So why so serious? There are more serious threats out there unless you're trying to conflate all of those under religious expression.
If so, then that is serious, seriously wrong.

The undermining of our secular government by religion is a very important threat indeed.

I find some of the Religious-Rights ideas to be a bit overboard. But compared to where we started. The founding colonies have become much more diverse, tolerant and secular over the years since April 19, 1775.

Have you ever asked yourself that?

government --

Quit doing that and we can all live in peace!

Honor Separation of Church & State --

to move onto the GOP, imo -- if that's their primary goal!!

as it recognizes the full personhood of males -- !!

And the same government which still has not accorded females full equality?

The RCC is not a democracy -- and the GOP supports corporate/fascism --

Where's the advancement?

IIRC Women didn't have much status anywhere in this new nation during the first decades. Regardless of being in what was a Catholic Colony area, Church of New England, Quaker or more sectarian colonial areas.

However the fact that no matter how little we think of the RCC today. The concept that they should be denied the vote as was so dominant in 17th century Puritanism and wasn't eliminated in all states till the early 19th Century is a foreign concept today.

In fact, a few of our presidents have seen UFO's --

even our astronauts!!

Many commercial pilots, lawyers, doctors, Indian Chiefs!!

The attitude that laws should be based on religion does a lot of harm.

I don't think that Britain is much harmed by singing God Save the Queen; but it is harmed when politicians and journalists try to impose social conservativism on the basis of religious traditions; smear and defeat political candidates for their secularism or social liberalism; or blame atheists and secularists for everything that's wrong with the country. And, though more of a problem here than I'd like, it's much less of a problem than in the USA.

So the prayer as a ritual, or expression of belief of some individuals, does no harm. But if it's intended as expressing support for religion-based laws and anti-secularism, then it can do harm. Not being there, I cannot tell which it was.

My point was that *if* the prayer is being used to undermine church-state separation then it should be condemned.

Why do it at a public ceremony?

Why do so many religious people always feel the need to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats? Maybe they're insecure about their "faith," which is built upon fairy tales and gossamer and swampland.

It's always expected that other people accommodate them, never the opposite. I could just as easily say the pray-ers are intolerant.

I've never expected anyone to accommodate me, however each believer is different just like each non-believer.

pray all you want - but why not pray before you leave home? Why do you have to pray in public places? "Look at me, look at me, how holy I am!"

Why not just be good for goodness' sake?

and a private belief system --

The Founders didn't separate State from "food markets" or "book stores" or

"newspapers" -- this is the ONLY specific separation from State -- and it is

religion.

Founders well recognized the threat to freedom of thought and personal conscience

which "god" beliefs represent.

In fact, "god" beliefs in that aspect are a threat to democracy and the right to

self-determination.

and hates everyone else and will kill them to let us get our way is the harm.

American exceptionalism is the root cause of everything from the destruction of First American society to the near-extinction of the buffalo to the killing of union members and their families by police and troops.

I've been an atheist as long as I can remember, and I always hated the prayer before football games. I found out that people volunteer to lead the prayer, so I put my name in. I'll bet that crowd will always remember that prayer, although strangely enough, I was never allowed back.

It went something like this:

"Dear God, thank you for bringing us together in this great contest on this Friday night for the purpose of bringing you glory. Help us to kill our opponents, tearing their hearts out and offering them as a fit blood sacrifice to you, the God of blood and redemption. In Jesus' name we pray, murder those bastards!"

Perhaps this would be a better tactic. Let's co-opt the whole ceremony by getting involved and springing our very own prayers on them.

So if a Christian does that, they are going against His express teachings.
I find it striking the first thing you mentioned was how you hate.
Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

nt

Didn't Jesus say that prayer is best done in private when no one else can hear you?

while professing love for all mankind (as long as you convert to our beliefs).

I find it striking that you leaped to judge him, while saying that he shouldn't judge.

Faith seems to requires great tolerance for hypocrisy, allowing professing something utterly unprovable, judging people while telling them not to judge, proclaiming tolerance while trying to tell others what they should be thinking.

I respect your freedom to believe whatever you want, but when you decide that you need to try to convince others, please consider that they are free to believe whatever they want and view preaching the unprovable as second hand smoke and mirrors.

that kind of debate suggests desperation --

of many school systems instead of teaching evolution is a very grave and serious harm done in this country. Allowing this to happen within the piblic school system is a failure to offer our citizens the best possible education in the country.

And the only ones pushing for such a messed up curriculum are fundies and evangelicals comprising what we have known as "the religious right."

Tell me again what little harm is done in the country as a result of religion?

The problem with emotional outbursts is they so often lead to worse things.
It was a school board meeting for crying out loud, did he really think to cure all that upsets him there?
I'm fairly sure the Polk County School Board doesn't have that kind of power.

And again, does Polk Co. Florida even have that kind of power?

Although opponents of separation of church and state like to use that pretense in such cases.

The only issue here is that a government body is praying. No individual's freedom of speech is hampered when government bodies are forbidden from praying.

are you hiding ALL of your identity?

:rofl:

Had the "prayer" been Islamic or based on a female "god" --

or a pagan belief system, would you be so anxious to protect it, I can only wonder.

"This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."

Now, the citizenry is objecting...

the constitution, which was written by a majority deist and not christians, is clear on this issue. When government bodies act in religious service of any kind, it is unconstitutional...period.

This is nonsense -- simply an effort to try to foster a Christian identity --

Where are the female preachers -- where are the other religions?

is violating the constitution. Fields is the one that should be punished. Kiefer should also not have been removed, it a public school board meeting.

Rather than hollering, he could have filed suit to stop it.

That's fine but expect to be arrested. There is no privilege to engage in civil disobedience. He was doing more than speaking in a "loud voice".

and being arrested for that is uncalled for, removed from the area perhaps but not arrested.

to leave. They did not want to arrest him, but he forced the issue. Was it his right to force the issue? Absolutely. Was he "right" to do so? I don't think so. All he really did was garner bad press for fellow atheists.

I thought they were all about forgiveness

Being an atheist among Democrats here is kind of iffy.

We are working on getting the county DEC to become more progressive with having an active PDA and Young Dems. It's just a strange place because this county skews old even for Florida.

I wonder if there's a history.

yell, scream, and act like a damned fool.

Agree that was the wrong way to go about it, unless he just wanted to cause a scene. To change things , that was useless.

Presume that's where this will end up -- and rightly so!!

Organized patriarchal religion needs to be able to show some government

acknowledgment of it -- especially to get into the schools -- otherwise

it is just another belief system.

The authority that government-blessing once gave to organized patriarchal

religion in having the Bible in schools -- is what it needs to continue on,

to be validated in the eyes of students, etal.

It's that VALIDATION they're striving for --

not good for their interests/$$/future membership to be excluded from

government-sponsorship!

of the fact that the School Board, in a nearby county, allows private individuals to pray before Board meetings begin, with a disclaimer published on the agenda that the Board cannot endorse any particular religion, probably does not rise to the level of a material issue -- and even if it could rise to the level of a material issue, the lack of a clear nexus, between himself and the Board meeting, probably would prevent anyone from regarding him as having standing

is illegal --

Where would you get the idea that Separation of Church & State means NO separation of

Church & State?

:rofl:

at the School Board office. The Board was threatened with a suit for opening its meetings with prayer and switched to "Voluntary invocation .. before the .. meeting by a private citizen" with a disclaimer "The .. beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed .. by the .. Board, and the Board is not allowed .. to endorse .. religious beliefs ..."

I usually dislike public shows of piety, and if the would-be plaintiffs want to regard this policy as transparent malarkey, it is absolutely fine with me: I have no real idea what their chance of success is; but I might suspect that they would have a bit of an uphill climb in court, insofar as: (1) attendance at such Board meetings is not really so very compulsory; (2) the Board appears to issue the above disclaimer with its agenda; and so (3) the material issue seems de minimis

As explained above, I rather doubt Mr Kieffer would have standing to challenge the current practice, in any lawsuit before the Board, as he seems not even to live in Polk County

Abstractly, of course, I would support Mr Kieffer's right to be an obnoxious asshole, so long as he does not become a nuisance or interfere with public meeting. Abstractly, again, I should take the view that one cannot be expelled from a meeting, for disturbing a meeting, when the meeting has not actually started. And, I suppose, abstractly, that Mr Kieffer might have a false arrest suit on those grounds

As a practical political matter, however, being an obnoxious asshole generally does not win the hearts and minds of the public. And as a practical matter for the police and courts, I might expect the authorities to take the view that Mr Kieffer came here without having any real business with the board and obviously intended to disrupt the meeting, so he was removed. If the official video does not actually show him disrupting the meeting, I might expect the charges to be dismissed -- and (if not) that he might anyway be found innocent. Practically, I wouldn't expect him to prevail on a false arrest suit, since the county would be likely to respond that he merely attended to disrupt the meeting and that his conduct was disorderly

And, are you trying to suggest that the school board isn't as much a part of government

as a school is? :eyes:

After "The Board was threatened with a suit for opening its meetings with prayer"

they switched to this subterfuge ....

"Voluntary invocation .. before the .. meeting by a private citizen" with a disclaimer "The .. beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed .. by the .. Board, and the Board is not allowed .. to endorse .. religious beliefs ..."

They had already been cautioned and warned on this --

and they confirm what they were doing was wrong --

"Board is NOT allowed to endorse religious beliefs" --

but they then decide on deception and dishonesty --


As for your other comments -- Public Displays of Piety -- PDP -- are also admonished by

gods/Jesus - and for good reason! Many are fooled by displays of piety. Beware of those

waving the Flag and/or the Bible!

The School Board couldn't be more obvious in their dishonesty --

Nor does it matter how large or small the attendance may be -- it's a body speaking for government.

And the "disclaimer" is as meaningless as everything else they've done to avoid their official

responsibilities.

Also -- how odd that you find Mr. Kieffer to be "an obnoxious asshole" -- but not the Board

Members who have worked to create governance by deception -- ???

You might have a point on false arrest, however -- especially if the Board would like to see

the case dropped.

The thing about our government "business" is that it is ALL all of our business.

Anyone is free to use any library -- drop in on any school board -- or town hall meeting --

Examine county documents -- transparency provides the info the public needs to keeps democracy going.

If local citizens understand the implications of this incident and the importance of

Separation of Church & State -- which is our guarantee of our right to free thought and

free conscience and self-determination and the underpinning for democracy -- then they will

come out and stand against this subterfuge by the school board.

If not -- they will be the losers which they might figure out some day! :blush:

Who would trust these Board Members any further with their current responsibilities?

Leave alone in making decisions re the educations for the town's children!

One of the last things our public schools needs is Fundamentalists screwing things up!



-------------------------

sub·ter·fuge (sbtr-fyj) KEY

NOUN:

A deceptive stratagem or device: "the paltry subterfuge of an anonymous signature" (Robert Smith Surtees).

And --

INVOCATION --

invocation
The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service. The act of conjuring up...

benediction
A blessing. An invocation of divine blessing, usually at the end of a church service. A short service consisting of prayers, the singing of a Eucharistic hymn, and the blessing of the congregation...

mantra
A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities.

of any substance the Courts might therefore rule against the Board; see my excerpts from a different case here:

struggle4progress (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-26-11 02:31 PM ...
5. McCreary v. ACLU (SCOTUS 2005)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=272808&mesg_id=272819

And as I just said in #153: if the would-be plaintiffs want to regard this policy as transparent malarkey, it is absolutely fine with me -- by which I meanT, "I don't object if the would-be plaintiffs want to file suit anyway, arguing that the current Board policy is blatant BS"

But the Courts will not touch cases they consider de minimis. Much as I would prefer (say) removal of any religious references from our coinage or from the Pledge, such references do not much coerce anyone into professing a religion against their will; the situation is rather different, of course, if a school requires students to bow their heads in a prayer. Questions before the Court, in any lawsuit by Mr Kieffer on this matter, would be, How much does the current policy tend to establish a religion? and Is Mr Kieffer eligible to argue this question? But if Mr Kieffer had no legitimate business before the Board and simply traveled to the meeting from another county to object to the policy, the Court will not reach the first question and will simply dismiss the suit because it answers the second question negatively. But even if Mr Kieffer had standing, I might not expect him to prevail against the pre-meeting prayers, on the grounds that such prayers have little tendency to actually establish a religion

you don't seem to mind throwing in a little disingenuousness of your own,

I've noted ...

Much as I would prefer (say) removal of any religious references from our coinage or from the Pledge, such references do not much coerce anyone into professing a religion against their will; the situation is rather different, of course, if a school requires students to bow their heads in a prayer. Questions before the Court, in any lawsuit by Mr Kieffer on this matter, would be, How much does the current policy tend to establish a religion? and Is Mr Kieffer eligible to argue this question? But if Mr Kieffer had no legitimate business before the Board and simply traveled to the meeting from another county to object to the policy, the Court will not reach the first question and will simply dismiss the suit because it answers the second question negatively. But even if Mr Kieffer had standing, I might not expect him to prevail against the pre-meeting prayers, on the grounds that such prayers have little tendency to actually establish a religion

"such references do not much coerce anyone into professing a religion against their will"

What you need to add to that is .... "in my opinion" --

Actually, Separation of Church & State does not concern itself with a necessity to prove

any such end results. As the Board clearly stated, it is barred from any invocation.

That's all that is necesary --

And, again, either the town members themselves understand the danger here of a religiously-

oriented school board or they don't. Ignorance is bliss -- for a time!

not much under my control

I regret that you regard that as dishonest on my part

Have a nice day

:hi:

environment?

Have a nice day --

:hi:

- had he expressed himself in an appropriate manner he would have gotten his point across without being hauled out.

No matter what his beef, opinion, complaint is - there is no need or room for outbursts, screaming, and disorderly conduct when people are attempting to conduct a civilized meeting. His message was totally lost due to the manner in which he chose to deliver it.

The person gives us other atheists a bad rep.

Although I agree with him completely, he could and should have found another less offensive way to have gotten his point across.

But we atheists have been insulted and pushed to anger and perhaps that's where this guy was coming from, not that that excuses his behavior.

will take up the cause. These people probably already made the connection. (And with so many replies before me, I'm sure it's been already mentioned.)

and being totally unprepared to have a Bible thrust at me to swear on!!

However, a good bit later, I was deciding what to do and thought of writing the judge -

but then realized that he must have been witnessing those Bibles and "swearing on" before

him for years --

So I called the ACLU -- and then followed up with a note --

Didn't expect anything -- I had spoken to someone there who was very nice -- didn't know

there were Bibles in the Court houses! Had to ask about it. I asked if there were any

previous complaints -- she didn't know.

But -- next time I went to jury duty -- NO BIBLES!!



:)