It can be mocked, but I see no reason to purposely invite someone to mock religion as part of the opening ceremony for the meeting. If they have a talent show night, that would be perfect.
Alternatively, it doesn’t say “Allah” on our money because “Allah” is an Arabic word. And “Buddha” is not a deity.
Is that why the pray reading to open Congress has been done by Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams?
No. Your imagination is not an indication of what reality actually is.
I am, thank G … well thankfully (:)), not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the big deal here is that this town pointedly states that they will allow any prayer to be said, no matter how exclusionary and specific religion promoting (theoretically even if it was “Christ non-believers will burn in Hell!” 99% of the time) the prayer may or may not be, and that in a community dominated by one majority over several small minorities, allowing such promotional prayers with no restricition, to be given at governmental events, functionally excludes those of minority beliefs (and non-belief).
Turning a blind eye to the content of the prayers seems inadequate.
But if they start censoring for content, they run into another problem-- favoring certain content over other content. But I think this could easily be overcome with some general guidelines that apply to all prayers, one thing being that none can be explicitly evangelical, for lack of a better term. No recruiting allowed.
Why is it appropriate to express approval and acceptance of a philosophy, but not to express disapproval and nonacceptance?
I mean, it seems kind of dickish to me as an atheist to have someone go up there and mock religion. It’d be insulting to people who don’t believe that particular thing to invite someone to come specifically in order to declare that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is wrong. I just don’t really see where you’re drawing the line.
I’m drawing the line at mocking. I don’t think they should invite someone who is going to mock atheists, either.
In what way does a prayer before a city council meeting impose Christianity upon you, mock, insult, or make you a second-class citizen? (the general you)
Respectfully, I think that such a takeaway from a simple prayer is absurd. And in any event, it isn’t remotely close to an establishment of religion, nor does it advance it.
It’s not even close to “excessive entanglement.” If a kid brings his father to show and tell at school and he discusses his job at Microsoft and speaks of the company positively, will Microsoft benefit or is there a danger of the Town of Greece and Microsoft merging into a single entity or the distinction of Microsoft/Greece becoming blurred? Will students who use Ipads feel shunned? Of course not. And likewise a prayer does no such thing for Christianity.
And I’ll second that this whole Islamic/Jewish/Buddha prayer as an allegation of hypocrisy as unfounded. If the people of the community want to open their council meeting with a chant to Ra the sun god, then I would disagree, but can’t see a constitutional problem. I don’t think that Ra the sun god churches would start cropping up everywhere because the town opens with such a prayer.
That is explicitly what this town did not do, claiming that “it would not censor an invocation, no matter how unusual or offensive its content.”
The standard they claim is that anyone is welcome to say anything there. They would, by that standard, have to be okay with someone mocking faith or calling for Satanic Rites or accusing Jews of killing babies for blood to make Matzot. Of course in practice what it meant (until the suit was brought and likely will be again if they win the case) was Christian pastors promoting worship of Christ in accordance with the views of the majority of the town and over the objections of those with minority views who were brave enough to speak up and who were told that their discomfort did not matter: either listen or leave.
The town’s position is to not accept watering down of prayer … as their legal representative put it: “If you’re saying the prayer ‘To Whom It May Concern,’ it’s no longer a prayer. It’s just speaking out loud.”
My personal ideal is a that we increasingly need to recognize how diverse we are and respect that government benefits by being inclusive of all religious belief (and non-belief) systems so long as they accept the secular axioms of our Constitution and the other laws of the land. I recognize that non-belief will have to deal for now, but I do hope that it becomes established that prayers that are exclusionary of minority beliefs do not belong at government functions. Prayers at government functions do need to be watered down.
Because it’s a city fucking council meeting, that’s why. Let’s consider two scenarios:
In what way does #1 affect me? None, unless I go to church for it. You may pray as much as you like in your own church and I have no objection, nor will I attend. It implies an endorsement of a particular belief, but it is not imposed upon anyone but the willing.
In what way does #2 affect me? It strongly implies an endorsement of religion by a government entity. If I attend the council meeting on business, I have to be subjected to the religious beliefs of others, and those religious beliefs are deliberately imposed upon the chamber whether they like it or not.
Why did I say “strongly implies”? Because the council doesn’t have to allow such, as it has absolutely no function relating to government business. The priest, minister or whatever was invited to appear; he didn’t just happen by and stumble in the front door. There was a conscious effort to request his presence in the absence of need. The only possible reason for him to be there is to impose a special belief upon the body.
There’s also the intimidation effect. Suppose someone has legitimate business in front of the city council – clearing up some confusion in his application for a business license.
The guest preacher declares that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour.
The guy having business to do might not agree with this…but is in a position of having to pretend to accede to it, because any open show of dissent could prejudice his business.
This is one of the biggest reasons for separation of church and state: it gives the appearance of coercion in official state business.
It has no other purpose. That’s why they are making a public show of prayer, to wave it in the face of others. It’s meant as a threat, a way of making it clear that they divide the world into Us and Them, and that the “Us” is the Christians.
Because Microsoft isn’t a religion. It’s a poor analogy; a better one would be if if during the Civil War a Southerner was allowed to show up in a northern school full of black kids and talk about the greatness and inherent superiority of the Confederacy. He might not say a word about racism or slavery - but they’ll know what he means.
But why at mocking? Intention of the mocker?
[QUOTE=jtgain]
It’s not even close to “excessive entanglement.” If a kid brings his father to show and tell at school and he discusses his job at Microsoft and speaks of the company positively, will Microsoft benefit or is there a danger of the Town of Greece and Microsoft merging into a single entity or the distinction of Microsoft/Greece becoming blurred? Will students who use Ipads feel shunned? Of course not. And likewise a prayer does no such thing for Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
That seems like a fairly specious analogy, given that people tend not to consider that kind of brand loyalty a massive part of their lives. Religion, or irreligion, yes. Not to mention, another point would be that if it’s the representatives inviting the prayer, it’s more like the teacher asking for* only* that child to bring their parent in, and declaring at the start that they have only invited that parent deliberately.
And yet - I can easily imagine your “of course not” scenario actually happening, because things like that certainly happened to me. If you didn’t have the right brand of bag at school, or you didn’t like Pokemon cards or yoyos or pogs (I may be revealing my age, here ;)) that absolutely could result in social pressure, bullying, exclusion, all that fun stuff. And that’s *without *officials stepping in to take sides. Kids - given the impression that the authority is sympathetic to their side over someone else’s - will take that ball and run with it. So, sadly, will some adults.
It seems like you all are arguing what the city council SHOULD NOT do instead of what the constitution actually forbids. I can’t imagine any rational person being so influenced by what the city council does. If the city council mentions that this month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month does any business feel the need to contribute lest the permit not be issued? Does the business’ donation to the American Lung Association last year make it fear that it will be disfavored?
Yes, the analogy differs because this is religion, but the only constitutional constraints deal with an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Even the Warren Court never held that a simple prayer to open a city council meeting was a violation.
All I have seen are unfounded hypotheticals where a hyper-sensitive person might fear some vague retribution for not going to the same church as a council member (who might not be going to the same church, but simply hiring the preacher who gave the prayer for his predecessors). Unless there is data that shows that this discrimination is happening, I can’t see where a judge might find the fear reasonable or that the city is somehow applying societal pressure against anyone.
Some of you seem to read the constitution as an absolute prohibition against any government body from recognizing religion in any form, and it simply doesn’t do that, even if you would rather they not have an opening prayer.
If we’re talking about what the constitution actually says, it seems unreasonable to refer only to this city council, given that that is not the sole area over which the constitution covers. I get that it’s the subject of this thread, but you’re drawing an argument seemingly from the basis of this particular case and this particular case alone as regards to national legislation.