# Ceremonial Deism, or Maybe Not **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845 "2013-11-01T15:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/21 "2013-11-04T05:28:52Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > OK , but if you then don’t put that same onus on shopping malls and football stadiums, the apparent favoritism has now become actual favoritism - we’ll have police officers direct traffic out of parking lots when needed, just as long as it’s not a religious organization/service causing the traffic. > I don’t like prayer before council meetings, but I don’t think eliminating the prayer would eliminate any favoritism that exists. I also have actually never heard anyone express a belief that police directing traffic in front of large churches but not small churches shows favoritism, anymore than I’ve heard anyone suggest that NYPD directing traffic away from the Met game but not the Cyclones game shows favoritism. You’re taking the parking/traffic thing beyond the intended example - one that an individual may feel is inappropriate use (based solely on venue) and somehow showing favortisim - my initial post on it even stated as much with the " **even if it is not truly being done**. Its not even a good example for 'ceremonial deism. ETA - just realized I was not responding to the same person - The malls and sporting arenas I’ve been to do have parking and exit/traffic flow strategies - the onus is on them to plan accordingly - doesn’t mean it always happens. I’m dropping the tangent - ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/22 "2013-11-06T19:47:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The problem with that is that Marsh rested on specific findings regarding the content of the prayers. I’m not sure that’s really true. The Marsh court specifically indicated that: “The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, 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. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.” So it sounds to me like they’re not really making a specific finding relating to the content of the prayers. And, indeed, apparently, the fellow’s prayers were explicitly Christian for the first 15 years or so, until a Jewish legislator complained. Still (although I’ve always been “coercion test” inclined, so that colors it), I would think that the key factor here is the method of selection. In your blurb, Chemerinsky says that they only invited Christian ministers (to the exclusion of non-Christians, I take it) and they gave explicitly Christian prayers. If that’s true, then I think there could be a violation. But I’d want more information on the selection method, since that seems implausibly heavy-handed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/23 "2013-11-06T20:02:13Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yes and no. It did state that the prayers were non-sectarian, but it never said that the content of the prayers was the sine qua non of their constitutionality. It was one factor in dicta. The Court does this in many opinions as I’m sure you know. > [@Falchion](#): > > I’m not sure that’s really true. The Marsh court specifically indicated that: “The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, 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. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer.” > > So it sounds to me like they’re not really making a specific finding relating to the content of the prayers. And, indeed, apparently, the fellow’s prayers were explicitly Christian for the first 15 years or so, until a Jewish legislator complained. They were basically contradicting themselves. “The content of the prayers is not at issue, because… well, we’ve looked at the content of the prayers and determined it is not at issue.” The content issue is especially important because Marsh rested on a bunch of well-worn historical arguments that boiled down to “well, the Founders did it.” Never mind that the largest distinction among the Founders was whether they were Catholics or Protestants, lapsed. Personally, I find it hard to credit any argument that a town council instituting a specific practice of Christian prayer is not advancing Christianity. Short of giving taxpayer funds to a church, it’s as clear an establishment of religion as you could possibly have. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/24 "2013-11-06T20:19:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They were basically contradicting themselves. “The content of the prayers is not at issue, because… well, we’ve looked at the content of the prayers and determined it is not at issue.” > > The content issue is especially important because Marsh rested on a bunch of well-worn historical arguments that boiled down to “well, the Founders did it.” Never mind that the largest distinction among the Founders was whether they were Catholics or Protestants, lapsed. > > Personally, I find it hard to credit any argument that a town council instituting a specific practice of Christian prayer is not advancing Christianity. Short of giving taxpayer funds to a church, it’s as clear an establishment of religion as you could possibly have. I’m not suggesting that Marsh is particularly well-reasoned. I just take issue with the idea that the lynchpin in Marsh is the content of the prayer. Especially when the Court goes to lengths to say that it isn’t. I agree that “a specific practice of Christian prayer” would be a problem. But what if they simply went to the phone book and invited every religious figure listed to give a prayer? Or put out an ad that said “Wanted: People to open meetings with prayer, all comers welcome”? Does it matter if the town has mostly Christian demoninations? Or if the non-Christians choose not to participate? To me, that’s very different than a policy (or deliberate practice) of only inviting Christians. Relatedly, I have a bigger problem with the notion that the town needs to police the content of the prayer. I strikes me as a much bigger problem having the council pre-approve the prayer as sufficently “non-sectarian.” If you’re going to do it, tell them: get up there and keep it under 60 seconds. And they say what they say. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/25 "2013-11-06T20:23:17Z")
That’s the thing: there _was_ a specific practice of Christian prayer here, instituted in 1999 at the behest of a new and apparently more demonstrative councillor. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/26 "2013-11-06T20:44:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s the thing: there _was_ a specific practice of Christian prayer here, instituted in 1999 at the behest of a new and apparently more demonstrative councillor. Okay, I gave in and glanced at the district court and 2nd circuit opinions, and I don’t think that’s right. The district court factual findings are lengthy, but the Court of Appeals describes the process this way: > [@](#): > > Between 1999 and June 2010, when the record in this litigation closed, the town did not adopt any formal policy regarding (a) the process for inviting prayer-givers, (b) the permissible content of prayers, or (c) any other aspect of its prayer practice. The town claims that anyone may request to give an invocation, including adherents of any religion, atheists, and the nonreligious, and that it has never rejected such a request. The town also asserts that it does not review the language of prayers before they are delivered, and that it would not censor an invocation, no matter how unusual or offensive its content. When Galloway and Stephens complained about the town’s prayer practice in 2007, the town explained the above-mentioned practices. The town acknowledges, however, that it has not publicized to town residents that anyone may volunteer to deliver prayers or that any type of invocation would be permissible. > > In practice, Christian clergy members have delivered nearly all of the prayers relevant to this litigation, and have done so at the town’s invitation. From 1999 through 2007, every prayer-giver who gave the invocation met this description. In 2008, after Galloway and Stephens had begun complaining to the town about its prayer practice, non-Christians delivered the prayer at four of the twelve Town Board meetings. A Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha’i congregation each delivered one of these prayers, and a lay Jewish man delivered the remaining two. The town invited the Wiccan priestess and the lay Jewish man after they inquired about delivering prayers; it appears that the town invited the Baha’i chairman without receiving such an inquiry. However, between January 2009 and June 2010, when the record closed, all the prayer-givers were once again invited Christian clergy. > > Although the town did not adopt, prior to June 2010, a formal policy concerning the selection of prayer-givers, it developed a more or less standard procedure. Three successive employees at the town’s Office of Constituent Services had responsibility for inviting clergy to deliver prayers. The employee first charged with this task initially solicited clergy by telephoning, at various times, all the religious organizations listed in the town’s Community Guide, a publication of the Greece Chamber of Commerce. Thereafter, this employee, Linda Sofia, compiled a “Town Board Chaplain” list containing the names of individuals who had accepted invitations to give prayers. Sofia and the two employees who succeeded her in this role testified that they worked their way down the list, calling clergy about a week before each Town Board meeting until they found someone willing to give the prayer. They also testified that they updated the list periodically based on requests from community members and on new listings in the Community Guide and a local newspaper, the Greece Post. > > Until 2008, the “Town Board Chaplain” list contained only Christian organizations and clergy. Religious congregations in the town are primarily Christian. Galloway and Stephens have both lived in or near Greece for more than thirty years, and both testified that they were unaware of any non-Christian places of worship in the town. In the district court, the plaintiffs introduced a map indicating the presence of a Buddhist temple in the town as well as several Jewish synagogues located just outside the town. There is no indication, however, that these organizations were listed in the Community Guide or the Greece Post. The map illustrated, moreover, that almost all of the organizations on the town’s prayer list, unlike the synagogues, were located within the town limits. In 2008, the town added to the list the Wiccan priestess, the lay Jewish man, and the Baha’i congregation leader mentioned above. So it sounds to me like they had a town in which the religious congregations were exclusively Christian; they went down the list of congregations in the newspaper and town “guide” and invited everyone. (The district court also found that there was no evidence that the Town Council was involved in the selection process and that the instructions give to the selectors was sect-neutral). These facts, to me, are very different from a “specific practice of Christian prayer.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/27 "2013-11-06T20:57:59Z")
I don’t think it’s much of a defense that the town guide only contained the names of Christian clerics, since, well, it’s the town’s own publication. It’s not like they were using the phonebook or something. I agree that this summation casts things in a better light, though. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/28 "2013-11-06T21:15:50Z")
Sooner or later us godless atheists will be in the majority, and we’ll be smiting down this prayer bullshit. Probably won’t be in my lifetime, but I have faith in atheism! ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/29 "2013-11-06T21:28:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t think it’s much of a defense that the town guide only contained the names of Christian clerics, since, well, it’s the town’s own publication. It’s not like they were using the phonebook or something. I agree that this summation casts things in a better light, though. Except that the Chamber of Commerce isn’t (I don’t think) a government agency. I mean, they’re using a third-party guide. And everyone, basically, agrees that a complete list of clerics within the town limits would have been exclusively (or almost exclusively) Christian. The other problem that I have is: Why is “Christian” the “sect”? According to the opinion, the town heard from Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Assembly of God, Episcopalians, and a number of Churches whose denomination I cannot readily ascertain. That’s a pretty broad base for “sectarian.” Much broader than the single minister of a single denomination at issue in Marsh. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/30 "2013-11-06T23:41:29Z")
You’re right. I missed the Chamber of Commerce reference. As to the sect, you can define it as broadly as a government might establish it. You can’t say a legislature is within its powers because it’s promoting every _Christian_ sect. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/31 "2013-11-09T18:44:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Personally, I find it hard to credit any argument that a town council instituting a specific practice of Christian prayer is not advancing Christianity. Short of giving taxpayer funds to a church, it’s as clear an establishment of religion as you could possibly have. Compare a local church the week before a prayer and the week after one. Is there a difference? Is there data that shows the church coffers improving from the prayer at the council meeting? In contrast to your opinion, I can’t see how a prayer advances Christianity in any but the most minimal, trivial way. In fact, if people are turned off by the idea of prayer at a council meeting, it may actually harm the church in a similar minimal and trivial way Second, you consider a non-sectarian prayer at a council meeting the equivalent to an establishment of religion? I find that an amazing statement. You consider it similar to the mayor (by virtue of his position as mayor) also being the vicar of the church, for example. To me, it is so far from being an establishment of religion to be preposterous to suggest it. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/32 "2013-11-09T18:56:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Compare a local church the week before a prayer and the week after one. Is there a difference? Is there data that shows the church coffers improving from the prayer at the council meeting? Is there any data showing an increase in taxes after a town meeting? What does that have to do with anything? Is the only purpose of a prayer to get money? “Lord, guide these administrators to do the right thing in Jesus’ name” is not asking for money, but it sure is religious. Is there any difference between a council meeting with a prayer and one without? Yes, one includes a religious element. > [@](#): > > Second, you consider a non-sectarian prayer at a council meeting the equivalent to an establishment of religion? I find that an amazing statement. You consider it similar to the mayor (by virtue of his position as mayor) also being the vicar of the church, for example. To me, it is so far from being an establishment of religion to be preposterous to suggest it. Is there any difference between a council meeting with a prayer and one without? Yes, one includes a religious element. How would you feel if the prayer was a Hindu, Muslim, or one to Zeus? Would that be OK? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/33 "2013-11-09T20:35:00Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Is there any data showing an increase in taxes after a town meeting? What does that have to do with anything? Is the only purpose of a prayer to get money? “Lord, guide these administrators to do the right thing in Jesus’ name” is not asking for money, but it sure is religious. > > Is there any difference between a council meeting with a prayer and one without? Yes, one includes a religious element.Is there any difference between a council meeting with a prayer and one without? Yes, one includes a religious element. > > How would you feel if the prayer was a Hindu, Muslim, or one to Zeus? Would that be OK? The simple inclusion of a religious element in a government proceeding is not unconstitutional, nor does it advance a religion in any meaningful sense, and is not an establishment of religion. That goes for any religious belief and a prayer to Zeus or a unicorn fairy. Where does one get the idea that simply because something is “religious” or “includes a religious element” that the government must not touch it? I know it is a holdover from the Warren Court decisions, but that Court never said it, nor is it based in law. As such, it is one other thing that the council does which you may or may not like and can vote them in or out at the next election at your own discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/34 "2013-11-09T20:50:55Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The simple inclusion of a religious element in a government proceeding is not unconstitutional, nor does it advance a religion in any meaningful sense, and is not an establishment of religion. That goes for any religious belief and a prayer to Zeus or a unicorn fairy. > > Where does one get the idea that simply because something is “religious” or “includes a religious element” that the government must not touch it? I know it is a holdover from the Warren Court decisions, but that Court never said it, nor is it based in law. The courts of the land currently use [Lemon v. Kurtzman](http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm) as the law, not your wording. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/35 "2013-11-09T20:55:57Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The courts of the land currently use [Lemon v. Kurtzman](http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm) as the law, not your wording. Right. And Lemon does not forbid the government from including a religious element in a meeting or being religious. It uses the 3 part test up thread that you mentioned and I responded to. #1 is clearly not applicable (as it isn’t a law) or is overruled by Marsh in the context of prayers at council meetings. #2 is satisfied as religion is not advanced in any material way, and #3 is satisfied because there is no “excessive entanglement.” If a prayer is “excessive entanglement” then what is an entanglement with religion that is not excessive? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/36 "2013-11-09T21:33:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Right. And Lemon does not forbid the government from including a religious element in a meeting or being religious. But _Lemon_ doesn’t say it’s OK, either. > [@](#): > > It uses the 3 part test up thread that you mentioned and I responded to. #1 is clearly not applicable (as it isn’t a law) or is overruled by Marsh in the context of prayers at council meetings. #2 is satisfied as religion is not advanced in any material way, and #3 is satisfied because there is no “excessive entanglement.” Now there’s where we disagree. I feel that a “prayer” by definition is a religious concept and both advances religion by being invoked _at all_ and creates excessive entanglement, no matter whose god is being called upon or avoided. To quote [Ambrose Bierce,](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/56409-pray-v-to-ask-that-the-laws-of-the-universe) > [@](#): > > PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.” Ask yourself this. Would you accept a Muslim Mullah offering an invocation to Allah to open the council meeting? How about an offering to the God of Chocolate and Bunny Rabbits? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/37 "2013-11-09T22:30:51Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > But _Lemon_ doesn’t say it’s OK, either.Now there’s where we disagree. I feel that a “prayer” by definition is a religious concept and both advances religion by being invoked _at all_ and creates excessive entanglement, no matter whose god is being called upon or avoided. Well, Marsh says that it can be okay. So, as noted, either Lemon is overruled or inapplicable. But I don’t understand why a prayer being given inherently violates Lemon. Other than you feel that way. > [@](#): > > Ask yourself this. Would you accept a Muslim Mullah offering an invocation to Allah to open the council meeting? How about an offering to the God of Chocolate and Bunny Rabbits? I’ve never understood why these debates always devolve into unsubstantiated accusations of hypocrisy. The prayers offered by the Bahai and the Jews in Greece were fine as well. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/38 "2013-11-09T22:52:11Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > To quote [Ambrose Bierce,](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/56409-pray-v-to-ask-that-the-laws-of-the-universe) Which Supreme Court did he sit on again? > [@](#): > > Ask yourself this. Would you accept a Muslim Mullah offering an invocation to Allah to open the council meeting? Why would that be a problem? > [@](#): > > How about an offering to the God of Chocolate and Bunny Rabbits? I see no reason to allow someone whose purpose is to mock religion be allowed to offer a prayer. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/39 "2013-11-09T23:32:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Which Supreme Court did he sit on again? All of them. > [@](#): > > I see no reason to allow someone whose purpose is to mock religion be allowed to offer a prayer. So now religion cannot be mocked? And that isn’t setting aside a protected place for a set of beliefs? Isn’t that exactly what “Establishment of religion” means? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845/40 "2013-11-10T00:02:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Ask yourself this. Would you accept a Muslim Mullah offering an invocation to Allah to open the council meeting? > > Why would that be a problem? For the same reason it says “God” and not “Allah” or “Buddha” on American money, of course. So-called “ceremonial deism” is just a very thinly veiled way of imposing Christianity through the government while the Christians pretend they aren’t doing so. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I see no reason to allow someone whose purpose is to mock religion be allowed to offer a prayer. But it’s OK to mock and insult people who aren’t Christian, of course. Some Christian getting up there and offering a Christian invocation is doing so for the purpose of rubbing it in the face of non-Christians that _they_ are regarded as second-class citizens, or outright enemies. Every dollar bill as much as says “If you aren’t a Christian, you aren’t _really_ an American”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-or-maybe-not/672845.md?page=3)