The crooked legislators need to get off their knees and get to work, they are a
major cause of the nations problems.
I don't see how anyone could read the full decision and disagree.When the people who *wrote* the First Amendment themselves had legislative
prayer (both before and after they wrote it), it's kind of hard to argue
that they meant to ban it.
The same original Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights for state
ratification also passed a rule providing for a congressional chaplain and
prayers to open congressional meetings. Freedom of religion means nothing if
religious actions and expressions are censored. Government should be committed
by the First Amendment to enable religious expression in any forum that invites
the views of the citizens of a community, and to invite all other members of the
public in attendance to show respect for their neighbors' beliefs by
listening respectfully. Religious concepts are at the root of the founding of
the United States, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which cites
the authority of the people to change their government as an "unalienable
right" bestowed by the Creator, in direct opposition to the claim of
monarchs that their authority was a divine endowment. Reminding American
citizens that God is the source of the freedoms they exercise when they debate
and vote is a good thing in a democracy founded on the principle that we are all
equal in the eyes of our Creator.
@The Irony Guy and Ex-Pat of ZionYour use of scripture to support a strong
separation of church and state and the purpose of prayer was powerful. I would
not be offended if my local government did not begin meetings with a prayer. But
I must admit, being a Mormon in baptists country where many don't even
consider me a Christian, that I am not offended at events that begin almost
always with a baptist prayer. Ex-Pat, you may be correct in your assumption
that the prayer is only tradition and does not represent true prayer, but does
that call for limiting this form of speech? I am not trying to be inflammatory
but I am interested in your opinions. @The WraithI believe your
professions of support for free speech, etc. Do you agree with the majority
Irony GuyWhat about UN-civil government?
re:The WraithYour views don't coiside with liberals and
atheists at the national level who do indeed want to squash ANYTHING that is
attached to Christianity as well as freedom of speech. The national liberal -
far left movement is all about censorship and if you spent five minutes watching
MSNBC or CNN OR NBC you would know exactly what I mean. These networks - 99% far
left liberal - are shocking to watch and listen to especially with their disdane
for the US Constitution but they unfortunately do represent the vast majority
view point of the left at the national level. The fact you don't share
their frightening view point is comendable but you are in a small minority in
your party my friend.
Gee patriot, I'm an atheist, liberal, and Obama supporter and I see this
case as a fairly limited technical ruling that really doesn't affect much.
I also do not want to squash any freedoms that stem from our constitution. I
support free speech for both you and I. I support the rights of people to be
free of unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. I support your
right to practice your religion, although I do believe in the importance of
church and state separation. Don't mistake different
perspectives on issues as attempts to destroy the constitution. One of the most
important parts of our nation's foundation is the ability for people with
even vastly different perspectives to work out solutions to problems. If you
ever bothered to take the time to talk to liberals or atheists you'd find
we actually have a lot in common. You may even learn to respect us! And, horror
of horrors, both of our ideas about issues may be affected and even made better
by such an exchange.
Redshirt,I wasn't necessarily talking about their town. I was
talking about our towns.
Ex pat and irony,Sorry but your DC book has no authority here. It
doesn't control me nor the country.
A VICTORY for conservatives and Christians and all those who value freedom of
speech and expression.A DEFEAT for liberals including atheists and
the Obama adminstration who consistantly try to squash any freedom that stems
from our constitution.
It would be cool to have a Wiccan prayer or a Hindu prayer. I wouldn't
want to always hear a Christian prayer. It would be a way of saying that
everyone is part of the whole group.It is good to be exposed to
different cultural values, it is diversity. If people aren't comfortable
with diversity and multiculturalism they should not work to prevent the rest of
us from being exposed to diversity.
To "GZE" if you do some looking into this case, the town was quite
inclusive. They had a Jewish prayer and a Wiccan prayer before some of their
meetings. The reason why the town had predominantly Christian prayers was the
simple fact that the religious groups in the town were all Christian.
@ chrisIf someone chooses to be offended they can leave (the US) or
wait for the Obama Administration to be over. Kennedy's
majority opinion (echoed by the legislators in Greece) implies, in my opinion
strongly, that legislative prayer is "traditional ritual". If that is
the case, I need cite only the first chapter of Isaiah: "Bring no more vain
oblations; incense is an abomination unto me, the new moons and sabbaths, the
calling of assemblies, I cannot away with, even the solemn meeting. Your new
moons and appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them."Prayer should be kept in the
"closet" or the "fields" (D&C), the family and the Church.
The legislative prayer is more show than a heartfelt petition ... particularly
when viewed in the light of the laws subsequently passed. Benchmark them
against the four gospels and it will be self evident. "They draw near to me
with their lips but their hearts are far from me" fits conservative
legislative bodies to a "T".
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil
government." D&C 134:9
Too bad my high school graduation in 1991 couldn't hold prayer, even a
It will be interesting to see if Christians are willing to be inclusive.
If you think you've only opened the door to the 'right minded',
just wait and see who else comes in.
It's refreshing to occasionally see some common sense rulings come from the
Supreme Court. If we could just keep getting back to the ways and practices the
United States had and espoused when it was at it's greatest and the envy or
literally the entire world, we would all be so much better off. Sadly,
we've been digressing lately.The practice of always cow-towing
to whatever the politically correct flavor of the month is has proven to be a
divisive weakness in the strength of America and to the principles which have
made us great.Too often we keep allowing the tail to wag the dog
while the majority of right-minded people remain all too silent. It's
refreshing to see we finally got something else right at the federal level
again. It's nice to feel like the insignia on our coins that assert "In
God We Trust" actually stands for and means something. I hope
that dissenters will keep in mind that no one is being forced to pray or
participate. This ruling simply allows it to happen should that particular group
of people so desire it. Total common sense.
This is good news. If someone is choosing to get offended, they can leave or
wait for the prayer to be over. Sorry liberals, you lose. Now, I'd encourage you to support the Supreme Court's decision
as you expect when you win on an issue.