Agreed, unless there’s a specified time frame that doesn’t coincide with break time.
Some people will object to religious symbols. A teacher was told not to wear her religious symbols to school. Those are the details I’m talking about.
But you do think a moment of silence is necessary? They couldn’t have their moment of silence on the way to work? While they were bushing their teeth? Maybe we could call a huddle! What is with the pomp and circumstance? You should show up to work ready to work.
Sorry. I ain’t buying it. Making it generic doesn’t make up for the fact that it has nothing to do with government business. It’s a mask. “Oooooh…if we don’t CALL it prayer, we can still pray at work! On the boss’s dime!”
Stay away from the Mississippi educational system, then.
I swear, every fucking thing I go to has several prayers involved.
-Joe, practically married to a teacher
("Please, god…PLEEEEEEEASE. Don’t let me get caught with my hand in the till.)
I agree. Of course they can pray at home or in their car on the way to work individually. I’m only suggesting an alternative. If the legislative body as a group decides that some recognition of the seriousness of the responsibility is a good idea then I wouldn’t complain about it and it would seem ridiculous for another legislator to be very offended by silence. It’s ceremony but that’s okay. It’s up to them and the voters to decide. Never having been in that situation I’m not sure how it works but it doesn’t seem like a regular punch in and go to work job. Any dopers with experience want to help out here. IS there a call to order. When did the prayer take place? Some sort of opening ceremony?
Incidently, if a religious legislator is elected and decides to bow his head and offer prayer before every vote then I think that should be respected rather than ridculed. I may not agree with his beliefs but I can respectfully allow him to observe them unmolested and defend his right to do so.
As I pointed out: option #1 is a very viable path.
Recognition of seriousness? Feh. That would be a change. I mean, they’ve been praying in government since forever and we still have more crooked theives and general ne’er do wells in government than Carter’s has little liver pills. These guys didn’t get that way because they came in late and missed the inspirational speech. I would hope that the seriousness of their mission would have been apparent when they decided to get into the field of public service.
I seriously doubt they punch a clock. I was using that kind of phrasing *for effect. * They need to concentrate on governing and leave prayer at home or at church. It’s a simple concept that, in my opinion, is spelled out clearly in the constitution. This constant recruiting, constantly taking every opportunity to let the country know that they’re “good christians and damnit it’s the best thing for this country” is tiresome, exclusive, and dangerous to every American. Even the ones that pray.
Just for instance…what if the majority of the people in next term’s elections, across the country, happened to be muslim? Do you think for one minute these Christians would abide by someone dropping to the floor and praising Allah while everyone was engrossed in doing America’s work? Fat fucking chance.
If an elected official bowed his head and offered a prayer while I was present, I’d tell him his behavior was inappropriate and ask him to stop.
I’d gladly pay to attend an opening of a legislative session if the opening “prayer” were to be “holy moly” and nothing else!
Freedom of speech, anyone?
I think a legislative body has the right to let anyone stand up and say anything s/he wants. If it’s a speech, it’s a speech. If it’s a prayer, it’s a prayer. If it’s a homespun anecdote… well, you get the idea.
I certainly understand the point about dumb prayers making people feel uncomfortable, but still–it’s someone talking, it’s speech. And, like it or not, we have freedom of speech in this country.
Imagine where this could lead. The judge says, “You can’t say JEEZUS! You can’t pray to JEEZUS!”
So Mr. Representative is recognized by the chair, he stands up and says, “I’d like formally to protest the the ruling of XYZ court, according to which it is illegal to say, 'Heavenly Father, guide us as we…” etc. During which soliloquy everyone in the chamber bows his/her head, and at the end of which s/he intones, “Amen.”
So, now the judge comes back and says, “NO! You can’t purport to protest when you really mean to PRAY. NO PROTEST PRAYERS, NONE!”
So the legislator comes back and says, “I’d like to protest the ruling of XYZ court, according to which it is illegal to protest the earlier ruling by saying, ‘I’d like to protest the ruling of XYZ court, according to which it is illegal to say, “Heavenly Father…”’”
At the end of the day, it’s thoughtcrime.
It reminds me of the ole Flagburning Amendment, another rotten idea. If you burn a red-green-and-blue flag that is clearly intended to look like Old Glory, is that flagburning? Is it, huh, is it? If you burn the photograph of a flag, then is it, well, is it? And so on.
I don’t like it.
Doesn’t apply in this case. This is a case in which a person is engaged by the legislature for a particular purpose on their behalf. In other words, they are an agent of the government.
I do not think these things mean what you think they mean. Or you are being hyperbolic to the point of silliness.
Nicely put thanks. The new battle cry seems to be “If you’re accepting the taxpayers money or in an area or activity that uses taxpayers money then you can’t say or do anything religious because it violates the seperation clause” Sometimes it seems to me that rather than a real concern about law it’s more of a “We’re sick of looking at it” reaction.
I am a big supporter of the seperation of church and state but I also support the freedom of worship. I don’t think that means “You can worship where and when I tell ya, I don’t have to see it, and no one is bothered by it.” It means a respectful tolerance of religious practice even if you don’t agree, providing it’s not being pushed on you.
If someone is taking up my time, particularly on the job, for their worship purposes, it IS being pushed on me. I’m a captive audience, simply by being paid to be there doing MY job. My job doesn’t involve prayer. It involves governing the people; not listening to someone outwardly practicing his faith when every other area of his life allows him to worship unfettered by those who don’t agree with him.
Here again, I don’t disagree with your assessment but that’s not the point. We judge their sincerity and level of hypocrasy at the voting booth. We must allow freedom of worship, even though we don’t believe or think it’s a silly waste of time. I like the free speech angle from ** Aeschines**
It’s also not about returning the intolerence of certain Christians with our own brand. I think it would be unreasonable to allow anyone to shout Praise Allah, or praise the Lord, or anything else on a regular basis. It’s about finding a reasonable balance.
Years ago a certain christian group would stand on the street corners of the downtown area in the small city I lived in. They would read from the Bible in shouting voices for hours taking shifts. Downtown businesses would complain because it hurt their business. People didn’t feel free to shop and browse in a relaxed atmosphere. The police refused to do anything because it was the whole freedom of religion issue. I thought then and still think that they should have been arrested for disturbing the peace. If going to jail made them feel like martyrs for Jesus so what. Get them off the street.
If you asked a praying public official to stop because you felt it was inappropropriate, I hope that person would continue, because you’d be wrong. His behavior isn’t inappropriate because you don’t happen to like it or approve. Public officials shouldn’t have to surrender their faith {sincere or not} because they get paid by taxpayers.
Where does it stop? If a legislator is speaking of a certain bill under consideration he should be able to say things like “It’s right before man and God” or according to the lessons Jesus taught us" if he chooses, sincere or not.
I agree with you about recruitment. Trying to coerce others into belief is unacceptable but I think it’s crossing the line and violating the 1st amendment to stretch the establishment clause to mean “don’t mention anything religious overtly or even covertly if you’re involved in government business” There’s more than one one right spelled out in the 1st amendment.
It’s not up to you, based on your personal preferences to define the parameters.
If the group as a whole decides to do away with any opening ceremony no arguement from me. IMO you asking someone to stop praying silently because having to see them with head bowed offends you, is no different than them witnessing to you. Now you’re insisting that they defer to your beliefs while they are making no effort to sway yours.
If you work at an office and your coworker decorates his cubical with all things Jesus you wouldn’t like it but you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as long as that person didn’t preach to you. I don’t think a government job is much different. You may indeed be a captive audience but that individual has a right to freedom of speech and worship. A reasonable balance must be found. Telling them to only practice their religion in private is not it. How does silent prayer differ from wearing a cross or a tie pin that says “Jesus Saves” If someone practices meditation and says I want to meditate briefly before I vote or speak or whatever, are you going to object? How does silent prayer differ from that?
But we’re not talking about silent prayer; the kind that goes on in someone’s head. We’re talking about asking everyone else to stop what they’re doing to show respect for someone else’s moment of prayer. You don’t need everyone else to be quiet while you hold a prayer in your head. You aren’t foisting it on anyone else in that sense. Hey…have at it. I think about what I’m making for dinner while I’m working. No harm, no foul.
Good points, cosmodan.
I’m reminded of a Steely Dan lyric: “I think it was you, talkin’ 'bout a world where all is free. It just couldn’t be, and only a fool would say that.”
Replace “free” with “PC” and you’ve got the current situation.
Look, you can’t create a society completely inoffensive to all and with all rough edges and asymmetries removed. The notion that, by excising the “moment of prayer” from legislative proceedings you are getting closer to a “neutral zone” is both baseless and dangerous. Further, doing so actually hurts the cause of those who desire to separate church and state. Allow me to explain.
Excising the moment of prayer from legislative proceedings is superficial, inasmuch as our culture and base beliefs inform the entire political process and not just its surface features. For example, can women representatives bring their children and breast-feed them? No, and that’s an imposition! It’s discrimination against working mothers.
Can the legislators wear jeans and t-shirts? No, and that’s an imposition! This is unfair to those from poorer districts who can’t afford clothes.
Can you curse in those august halls? No, and that’s an imposition! Where is freedom of speech? (Preemptive note: Here the legislature is regulating itself, as it should.)
It’s all one cultural and social imposition after another. That’s life, that’s human nature. The scary thing about PC is the hidden assumption that there is one fair way to do things that we all ought to agree upon. There isn’t.
If people don’t like hearing Christian bromides in such situations, they should work to change it through social means.
I also don’t think that imposing speech regulations on legislatures is in the interest of those truly in favor of the separation of church and state. I would much rather have the theocrats declare their status with overt symbols than have them take their agenda underground.
Any individual legislator can prattle on about jesus all they want. What this was was an organized, body-wide hymn sing as part of official business. Not the same thing.
The thing is…when you start adding all these “little things” together, it begins to entirely erode the concept of separation of church and state. The money, the prayers in school, the teaching of intelligent design, the congressional pulpit, the pledge of allegience, state funding to parochial school. We’re not talking about one little thing any more. We’re talking about way too much religion in a secular nation.
I’m against most of that shit too. The government shouldn’t impose religion on its citizenry. But a court telling the legislature just what kind of prayer it can or can’t say is a different matter, since the legislature makes its own rules for itself.