Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court endorsed legislative prayer for second time in 30 years’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 6 2014 6:40 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Christopher B
Ogden, UT

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.

Brio
Alpine, UT

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.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

If you think you've only opened the door to the 'right minded', just wait and see who else comes in.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

It will be interesting to see if Christians are willing to be inclusive.

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

Too bad my high school graduation in 1991 couldn't hold prayer, even a non-sectarian prayer.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government." D&C 134:9

Ex-Pat of Zion
Lititz, PA

@ chris

If 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".

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

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.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

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.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

Ex pat and irony,

Sorry but your DC book has no authority here. It doesn't control me nor the country.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Redshirt,

I wasn't necessarily talking about their town. I was talking about our towns.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

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.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:The Wraith

Your 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.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Irony Guy

What about UN-civil government?

Wacoan
Waco, TX

@The Irony Guy and Ex-Pat of Zion
Your 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 Wraith
I believe your professions of support for free speech, etc. Do you agree with the majority opinion?

coltakashi
Richland, WA

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.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

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.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

The crooked legislators need to get off their knees and get to work, they are a major cause of the nations problems.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments