ACLU sues Mo. county over prayers at meetings

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

WASHINGTON, Mo. (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union wants Franklin County commissioners to stop saying prayers at meetings, stop letting audience members say prayers and stop asking everyone to bow their heads.

A lawsuit filed Sunday against the commissioners on behalf of an anonymous woman claims the policy of Presiding Commissioner John Griesheimer and other members to pray at the beginning of meetings violates both the U.S. and Missouri constitutions.

The Washington Missourian (http://bit.ly/LDdIEz) reported the ACLU sent the county a letter in March asking commissioners to stop the prayers after someone filed an anonymous complaint with the organization.

After receiving the letter, the commission reverted back to offering a moment of silence at the beginning of its meetings, which was the practice after Griesheimer was elected in 2010. That didn’t stop the prayers, though.

Some citizens have prayed in recent weeks during the public comment portion of meetings. The lawsuit claims the commission has “adopted a practice of having residents lead sectarian prayers during meetings.”

The suit also says Griesheimer’s instruction to people at the meetings to bow their heads for prayer is offensive “because such instruction is coercive.”

The ACLU is asking a federal court to declare the commission’s acts unconstitutional, issue a permanent injunction against prayers at meetings, and order the commission to pay the anonymous plaintiff $1 for “deprivation of constitutional rights.” It also asks the county to pay the ACLU’s attorney fees.

“Plaintiff objects to and is offended by sectarian prayers at meetings of the Franklin County Commission because they endorse a particular religion and are an attempt by Franklin County and its officials to prefer one religious faith over others,” the lawsuit claims.

Commission members were served with the lawsuit on Tuesday. Later that day, county counselor Mark Vincent said commissioners will need to meet in a closed meeting to discuss the pending litigation.

Vincent called the suit “pre-emptive,” noting he is drafting a policy on the issue of prayers.

“The policy should address the concerns in the suit and will meet all federal and state laws, as well as the inherent values of the commission,” Vincent said.

More like this story

spelchek 12 months ago

So, government can't have religion but religion can have government? This regime must go.

JCLifer 12 months ago

That is what "Separation of Church and State" means in the revisionists' constitution..

John 12 months ago

Neither the United States Constitution nor it's amendments state anything about separation of Church from State, instead it refers only to keeping State out of Church. Y'all can argue all you want, but you cannot find it in there. If you bother to read ANY of the writings from the founders of the country and the authors of the constitution, you will read that they were interested ONLY in the government not being involved in the religious life of it's CITIZENS (does not include NON-citizens or illegal immigrants).

JCLifer 12 months ago

I agree with you. The government should let these people pray. Leave them alone and let them pray for guidance before the meetings.

jeffcitygirl 12 months ago

If they need some "higher force" that has not been proven to even exist, much less any reason to give that "higher force" credit for being of any intelligence whatsoever, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to "guide" government! That honestly scares me! Are they hearing some mystical voice in their head telling them what to do? Anyone else would call that insanity! Seriously, I don't mean to make fun of or bash religion, if some people find some peace in it, more power to them, I just feel that since we do have the freedom to choose to believe or not believe in a deity, that in order to keep things impartial, practical, and based in logic and reason, that "praying" and worship of whom or whatever should be contained to your personal life outside of politics, outside of education, and outside of the workplace. I don't care if they have a moment of silence, that seems like a good compromise, do whatever you want in your "moment of silence"

tonto_goldberg 12 months ago

The Franklin County Commission is "the government" in this case, and "establishment of religion" in this case means forcing a sectarian prayer on persons who may have a different faith. That is the primary thing the constitution prohiibits with respect to religion. More importantly, these political "show prayers" are not respectful for Christians. If the commissioners want to pray for guidance before their meetings, they should remember the guidance in Matthew 6, verses 5-8.

John 12 months ago

keyword in your entire inaccurate ( does NOT stop with Franklin County -- it will continue on to the Supreme Court) is "forced." Nobody was "forced" to do anything.

Matt 6 was metaphorical concerning drawing attention to one's self through public prayer. It is NOT a proscription for public prayer.

whatif 12 months ago

OH MY GOSH!!!!! With all that is going on around us, crime, drugs, texting while driving, child abuse, and the list goes on, and this is all this person has to complain about -- who is this hurting and how? It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so petty, let alone heartless to only think of themselves. If this is affecting anyone negatively, then they have personal problems beyond a prayer. Ooops, just figured it out, they need praying for.

Sequoia 12 months ago

Here's the problem with overt government prayer:

Suppose you are not Christian. You have business before the commissioners. You attend the meeting where you have business, and before the meeting you hear the Commissioners pray a Christian prayer. Suppose you are wearing a turban, yamulka, or something that would suggest to an observer that you are not Christian.

Would it be unreasonable for this person to worry that this overtly Christian commission might discriminate against a non-Christian?

It's the same reason we don't have the 10 Commandments in the courtroom. We want our government to be absolutely clear: No matter what your faith, before this body you will be treated no differently than any other citizen. Having government officials publicly pray before doing business suggests that religion has something to do with their business. It doesn't.

Keep the prayer at home, please. Pray as Jesus taught you to pray. Not like the Pharisees who want everyone to see their devotion. Jesus said, go into your room and lock your door and pray in secret, where the Father hears all.

John 12 months ago

Answer to your question in paragraph 3: "Yes, it is unreasonable for that person to worry about that UNLESS/UNTIL it happens. Then can take it to a higher court. Discrimination is NOT something you complain about BEFORE it happens.

John 12 months ago

Many feel that the Supreme Court should rule by majority vote of the people; and the court doing that is what has resulted in this mess. What is written in the constitution is written. If citizens want it changed, then I suggest they amend the constitution. . . otherwise -- the government should be hands off of religion/not vice versa.

jeffcitygirl 12 months ago

Thank you Sequoia!! What do you know, there are logical thinkers in this town after all, color me shocked! I totally agree with your post and I can't fathom why people feel the need to make a spectacle of prayer in a group of mixed citizenry outside of a church. I will get flamed for this, but I still struggle with putting my faith in leadership that actually believes there is a guy up in the sky that controls humanity. I struggle with how any intelligent intellectual person can believe in a deity, and even more so those who feel the laws that govern all people should be based on those that feel they "know" what this "God" approves and disapproves on based on a book written by human men long long ago...

wesuilnm 12 months ago

Since I left JC, I've had four go through high school in three different schools. Two of these public schools were not majority Christian. My youngest boys attended one of the best public high schools in the country and it was 40% Christian, 40% Jewish and 20% mixed others. Jefferson City is not representative of what most of the rest of the country looks like anymore. Any prayer sponsored by the government will as a minimum show disrespect for someones beliefs.

spelchek 12 months ago

Explain how prayer offends. Seems the only offended are those with liberal mind sets. How can you preach tolerance when you lack any? I have a feeling many who post on here, who put their faith in government, wouldn't have the cojones to complain about a Muslim who got on the floor and started praying to the east before a gov't sponsored meeting. The labels "intolerant", "bigot", "racist", and many others would flood from their mouths towards anyone who dare complain. Lastly, "Jefferson City is not representative of what most of the rest of the country looks like anymore." ; what an elitist statement. You're juxtaposing one small city to the "rest" of the country. Which part? Arkansas? Kentucky? Iowa? Georgia? Wyoming? What does it "look like"? Please, educate all us back wood religious hicks who like to cling to our guns and religion.

JCLifer 12 months ago

Crickets...

tonto_goldberg 12 months ago

Read Matthew 6, verses 5 through 8 and think about it. "Read your Bible and think about it" is often derided as simplistic but I think you will get the point on this one.

John 12 months ago

So, you believe that ALL prayer must be in private and secret? You do not think that Matthew was writing in metaphors and similies?

Actually it is patently obvious that Matthew was not providing literal instructions but, instead, was advising us to NOT do those things as a way to bolster ourselves in the eyes of other men. This is clear because of the surrounding passages, such as; not letting our left hand know what our right hand is doing.

It is NOT a good thing to take Biblical teachings (or any information, for that matter) out of context. Especially when using it to prove (inaccurately) a tenuous point.

Sequoia 12 months ago

Just so others can follow, here's the passage:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

To me, anyone who prays in public should immediately be suspected as a scam artist.

Anyone who thinks a politician is good because he prays is a total sucker.

Any politician who uses the name of Jesus to advertise himself or his idea is craven and blasphemous.

To me, this passage says one important thing: True prayer is in SILENCE. Be still. Be quiet. Don't tell God what you want... let God speak to you. The Word of God is just one word. He repeats it to you again and again, at all times... just not too loudly.

John 12 months ago

Interesting that you chose to ignore my questions of you regarding this post. Therefore I assume you pick and choose Biblical verses and take them out of context in an attempt to "prove" or support your errant statements.

Again, for those not following: Those Biblical verses you quoted (I supppose since you did not cite the source), were written metaphorically. To prove that, one need only consider 2 verses earlier where Matthew wrote that you should not "let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." (Holy Bible, NIV, Zondervan)

The detractors of the Holy Bible always attempt to use Biblical verses in their arguements while taking the verses out of context. Be aware all who use the Bible to oppress or to make a point for themselves (liberal and conservative alike); GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. Somewhere, sometime, someone will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Sequoia 12 months ago

I didn't know those questions were for me. I thought you were asking Tonto.

I do think almost all of the Bible is literary metaphor, yes. It is poetry, not literal history, in my view.

Do I think all prayer must be in private and secret? I don't know. I know that Jesus emphasized that the Father hears your silent prayers. When people pray out loud, I'm not sure who their intended audience is. We know God hears silent prayers. I guess I would answer with a question. If God hears your silent prayers, then why pray out loud?

If a person prays with a mindset of "I'm going to let everyone see me praying, so they know I am good," ie, a politician goes out of his way to mention Jesus, then I think he is using the name of God to cast himself in good favor, and I think that is a sin. If you pray to show off or publicize your faith, or you pray to send a "message" to liberals or aetheists or the Supreme Court or whoever you're thinking of, if you use Jesus to argue for/against tax increases, I think that's wrong according to this passage. That's dragging down the sacred act of prayer to the secular world of politics. That's just me, my interpretation.

I agree, God laughs last.

Are you saying I'm taking something out of context or misinterpreting something? What do YOU take from the passage?

Sequoia 12 months ago

You say the passage is a metaphor. A metaphor for what? If you think I've misinterpreted the passage, please correct me.

John 12 months ago

I have made it clear as to modern teaching on Matthew's comments.

No, MOST of the Bible is NOT poetry, although some of it is, and is quite beautiful in the original language.

Neither is MOSTLY metaphorical.

At least to Biblical Scholars who have spent lifeimes studying it and the supporting documents (of which there are many) that substantiate the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible.

That's all, no more discussion for me on this subject. You guys go ahead and debate religion, just quit taking Biblical verses out of context to prove untenable arguements.

tonto_goldberg 12 months ago

John, I thought I was taking a Pharisaic approach, but you win for your effort to "interpret" scriture. This particular set of verses was not the work of some bureaucratic council in the early middle ages. Rather, Matthew was recounting a spcific message given by our Saviour to the twelve - his apostles. Even if it was intended as a metaphor, it delivers a clear rebuke to the vapid kind of public prayers favored by politicians.

John 12 months ago

I truly am impressed with all these folks on here who figure they know better than the founding fathers what the founding fathers meant the constitution to say and mean.

They want the supreme court to decide cases based upon majority rule of the people, regardless what the constitution says.

Then, SOME of them call us constitutionalists names . . . . LOL at JeffCityGirl referring to me (and others) as "simple minded fools" when she cannot fathom a deity and yet has no problem getting her mind around a "big bang bringing all of this into being.

If you believe in the big bang, then praytell, where did the matter come from that caused the big bang? When you answer that, then you can tell me where every iteration of material came from?

billbrasky 12 months ago

John, the burden of proof is with the believer. Anyone of science will tell you that we really have no idea were all the matter in existence came from. In fact we can only account for 5% of all existing matter in the universe. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to know all the answers. Yet, science is progressed by those who aren't satisfied with the answer, "God created everything"

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Praytell who created the creator?

tonto_goldberg 12 months ago

The creator was not created. The creator has always existed and will always exist; with no beginning, no end, no limit, and no boundary. The best recent translation of the creation story - which we know was borrowed almost intact from older Sumerian legends - has the creator calling the universe into existence.

People who call themselves religious, especially around this backward part of the world, have two serious logical problems. The bigger of the problems is an all-knowing, all-powerful diety who is limited to human terms, a human time scale, and a relatively recent human calendar. The second is that the creator has referred to himself (itself if you prefer) as "I am". Not "the" I am, just I am. Another set of logical problems could be constructed if you want to get into the "exclusivity" issues under which each little sect believes has exclusive access to, complete understanding of, and undisputable control of all religious truth.

John 12 months ago

Posted in wrong location.

John 12 months ago

Ahhh, the strawman approach; try to turn the arguement around when you cannot answer the questions asked of you. .. . .

No, there is no burden of proof to the believer. The constitution makes that clear. However, anyone making the statement they cannot grasp the concept of a deity and yet has no problem believing something came from nothing is exhibiting a LOT more faith than I have.

whatif 12 months ago

Okay, so why should the U.S. bend over backwards to make sure nobody is offended because of their religion/beliefs/life style that come into this country. Why can't they respect our way as it has always been. And as far as the discrimnation point - do you really believe that by taking out prayer/ten commandments is going to change any persons opinion/beliefs or how they conduct business - excuse me but I don't even see that happening. After all what do these people expect if we were to move to their country or even visit their place of worship -- do you really think they are going to change their ways for us. I have no problem with people from other countries moving to the US, I really do appreciate diversity, but to expect to change it to what they left. I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas not Happy Holidays and if they have a problem with that that is their problem not mine. If they want to wish me greetings of their origin I would have no problem with that. I respect their differences as I would expect them to accept and respect mine. When in Rome do as the Romans do.....

John 12 months ago

Answer to your first question: "It shouldn't."

jeffcitygirl 12 months ago

Um..not all people of other faiths are from other countries you simple minded fools. Lots of people in this country are NOT Christian, lots of AMERICANS (born, bred, or legally immigrated) are of no faith or are of other faiths. Diversity is more than nationality, it's race, gender, personality, cultural background. Open your minds to a BIGGER America than Jefferson City, MO!!

spelchek 12 months ago

"...you simple minded fools." -- Here that Jefferson City? jeffcitygirl has spoken and is not tolerant of those not tolerant of her so called tolerance.

JMO 12 months ago

Congratulations. You've demonstrated the one and only problem I have with a great many athiests. You think you are so much better and so much smarter than anyone with faith. How dare you refer to other people as "simple minded fools" because they don't agree with you? Whatif's post is off the mark assuming that the offended are not american's, but he's entitled to his opinion, which basically is that the majority should rule. Disagree all you like, as a matter of fact, I disagree with him, but what a rude thing to say! While I've always thought your posts were well thought out and generally agreed with them, this just ticks me off.

I'm absolutley with the ACLU on this one. Government shouldn't start meetings with prayers. But maybe YOU should open YOUR mind to the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, there is something out there beyond your physical senses, and maybe consider being a little more tolerant yourself.

TickledPink 12 months ago

jeffcitygirl, it is exactly that attitude and disrespect that makes all athiests look bad. I don't have to like someone's religion to be able to show respect for them and their beliefs and for that reason most of my Christian friends leave me alone about my "lack" of belief/religion.

I also don't feel the ACLU should be suing. If my representative, councilman, Senator, etc. wants to pray before a meeting that's fine. I assume they weren't throwing people out of the room if they didn't join in the prayer. Just because they're a government official doesn't mean they have to leave their belief at the door. People have gotten so hung up on eradicating any form of public displays of religion that it's long passed into the realm of absurdity. All it takes is just a tiny bit of tolerance (on ALL sides) and these issues would be moot.

jeffcitygirl 12 months ago

I wasn't calling people simple minded because they choose to beleive, the "simple minded" comment was towards the poster who wrote the comment about "when in Rome..." indicating he/she believes that anyone of any other religion other than Christianity must be of a foreign background. That is simple minded thinking. I did not mean to offend any Chrisitians or other believers. I am bewildered by, but respectful of your right to believe and worship what or whomever you'd like. I do apologize to anyone who I may have offended.

whatif 12 months ago

I am sorry if I gave that impression, but it certainly was not my intent. Worded poorly I admit. My frustration comes from lack of tolerance toward any religion. I have been to many different religious ceremonies and have enjoyed them. And after reading all of these opinions, I still fail to see why we make such a stink about religion. What are people afraid of? Isn't religion what started most of our wars? Is it not religion that separates us from embracing each other? And for what - in the end it is not going to matter one way or the other. It seems to me people worry too much about the small stuff, and I say small only in the context we make mountains out of molehills. It seems there is always somebody wanting to stir the pot. If I were at a function where prayer was offered and I did not have such a belief system I would listen intently and maybe gain something from it and just love all. We can argue these points till the cows come home and when all is said and done we are still right back where we started from. So what was really proved - how combative we can be. Simple minded - yes, I will accept that comment as a compliment..... Namaste

JCLifer 12 months ago

AMEN!

MO4LIFE 12 months ago

Everybody is talking about the bible but when you are all done the bible was written by a man! You can call it Gods word if you want but when all is said and done Jesus and our lord and savior christ did not write the bible themselves. Therefore just like a rumor, or a story that is told to you and passed around the room it will be a totally different story when it gets back to you. Now don't get me wrong I believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but the bible is a mans creation not the word of god as everyone portrays it to be. Otherwise how did the King James Version and the New testament come to be so long after Jesus dies on the cross as the good book says he did. Just like the bible says that you can speak to the lord whenever you want to but pastors and reverends and cardinals and bishops say you are sinner if you don't confess your sins in the confessional. If I can talk to the Lord myself as the Bible says then why do they follow some parts of the bible but not others. Do not worship anyone but the lord yet people worship the pope! Is it just me or is religion the only thing that logic doesn't apply to!

John 12 months ago

You need to study several things. The basic is that the Holy Bible was written over many many years. Although it was, indeed, written by man, it proclaims itself to be the "inspired" Word of God.

Now, you may disagree all you want, but I would like you to, at least, consider the following: You think the Holy Bible is nothing but MAN's writing, yet you write of your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Now, if you find the Holy Bible to be in error, WHERE do you get your information about Jesus Christ, and the Godhead?

You also should do a little studying on the various councils that met and worked on the Holy Bible.

MO4LIFE 12 months ago

My info on Jesus Christ was forced into my head as a child when i was forced to go to church from the age of 3 until i moved out of my parents house. "Go to Church or Don't live here"! But why is it not reasonable to say that man wrote the bible therefore it is not the word of GOD.

Because the same people that believe and read the bible are usually the same ones that don't believe in psychics or ghosts or in people in the black church speaking in tongues and catching the holy ghost. But yet they believe the bible was written while under control of the spirit!

You can't believe both that is not logical in any way shape form or fashion. I am not argueing with you and you made some valid points but you are proving my point when you say "study the various councils that met and worked on the Holy Bible" Movie are "inspired by true events but they are never the full truth!

John 12 months ago

I was unable to make ANY sense out of your last paragraph.

My point is that you wrote of YOUR Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yet you maintain that, "But why is it not unreasonable to say that man wrote the bible [sic] therefore it is not the word of GOD."

If you deny the Holy Bible's teaching, then you must deny your "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Why? Because the Holy Bible is the ONLY source of information on Jesus Christ. So, either the Holy Bible or the Holy Spirit provided the information that you proclaim as a person truth.

And you still need to study on the councils, what they did, why they did it, and the results of their meetings. It is obvious from your writing that you do not understand or, at least, have not studied the Councils of Trent, etc.

asb 12 months ago

A county commission praying is clearly government establishing a religion. The constitution doesn't really address county government, but the Missouri constitution does. And, no matter what those of faith wish, the writings of the Framers, on both the document and their social philosophy, make it clear that they intended governnment and church to be conducted in their own venues. Yep, pre-meeting prayer is common, and is against the law, but the church minded never give up. The prayers offered are Christian, specifically, so are inevitably offensive to non-Christians. Good manners alone would proscribe pre-meeting prayer. And on the Big Bang; our inability to explain something, and then credit it to a God, is supersition. The Church learned long ago not to mix science with their God, they looked foolish each time they forgot. There are, BTW, a number of possible explanations of how somethng (us) comes from nothing, but I'm not physicist enough to understand it, but I know that the odds of it all coming from the work of a being that is even more difficult to explain or accept just begs the question and kicks the can down an ever more impossible road. Religion does not belong at government functions, and government has a role in assuring that separation. If you want a theocracy, go to Iran or Pakistan, but leave Jesus here or they'll kill you. And on Muslims praying at meetings, it isn't done. Prayers to Mecca are conducted ONLY among Muslims if possible, and not in government meetings. Mohammad forbids it.

John 12 months ago

ASB: For all of your ranting and raving and writing, you are way off the mark. "Comman prayer", as you so long-winded wrote, is NOT illegal. Only FORCED common prayer. This is not a case of a bunch of kids who might be intimidated by an adult teacher or administrator. These are adults who can pray with the person who is leading the prayer, or they can stand quietly and count holes in the acoustic tile, they can pick their noses, they can do anything they want, quietly and respectfully (respectfully of those who ARE praying, not because of what is in the prayer). Get over it.

muleman 12 months ago

Just because you are praying to a God does not make you a christian. Its possible that these county commissioners are all praying to a different God during these prayers. As long as the Gods name isnt mentioned in the prayer, it cannot be labled as a cristian prayer.

sickandtired 12 months ago

Every private citizen needs to go to the next meeting and stand up and start praying when it is your turn to talk. As a private individual the ACLU cannot do anything about you. The argument is that the govt cannot support the prayer by offering it. The most they can do is ask you to stop. What would happen if you had 300 people at the meeting who all started praying? Maybe the ACLU and the "anonymous " person would get the idea we are tired of having to bow to them and what they want. If it was such a big deal and the "anonymous " person thought what they were doing was correct why do they have to be anonymous?

seeno 12 months ago

sickandtired you said "If it was such a big deal and the "anonymous " person thought what they were doing was correct why do they have to be anonymous?" Up front I don't agree with the lawsuit, but this is the same kind of question about 50% of us was asking when they inducted Rush Bust into the MO Hall of Famous Missourians. If it was such a big deal and Steve Tilley and the GOP thought what they were doing was correct why was it done in a super stealth ceremony that would make seal team six proud and his own privite security camera.

.. Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Sequoia 12 months ago

Sigh. Look, when this case goes to court, the judge and jury isn't going to care whether someone was "offended" or whether Christianity is right or not. That's not the standard. That's just manufactured garbage. You're missing the legal issue.

The legal standard has nothing to do with whether anyone was "offended" by the prayer. The issue is whether the government is OBJECTIVELY displaying a preference for a certain religion.

Here is a good discussion from Joyner v. Forsythe County by the Fourth Circuit, one of the most conservative in the country. They allow some legislative prayer and forbid others, based on whether the policy shows a preference for a certain religion. I think this quote covers the issue well:

"In sum, invocations at the start of legislative sessions can solemnize those occasions; encourage participants to act on their noblest instincts; and foster the humility that recognition of a higher hand in human affairs can bring. There is a clear line of precedent not only upholding the practice of legislative prayer, but acknowledging the ways in which it can bring together citizens of all backgrounds and encourage them to participate in the workings of their government.

At the same time, both the Supreme Court and this circuit have been careful to place clear boundaries on invocations. That is because prayer in governmental settings carries risks. The proximity of prayer to official government business can create an environment in which the government prefers—or appears to prefer—particular sects or creeds at the expense of others. Such preferences violate “[t]he clearest command of the Establishment Clause”: that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” After all, “[whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean ... it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed.” More broadly, while legislative prayer has the capacity to solemnize the weighty task of governance and encourage ecumenism among its participants, it also has the potential to generate sectarian strife. Such conflict rends communities and does violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life."

To me, part of the issue is to protect the purity of religion. Politicians shouldn't try to cover up awful policies by appealing to religious feeling, thereby soiling religious faith with the slime of base politics. Politicians have to get in the mud. Just part of the job. But they shouldn't drag Jesus down with them.

It's not about being offended. It is not about prayer causing harm. It is about keeping government and religion separate. Not just to protect non-Christians. BUT ALSO TO PROTECT CHRISTIANITY FROM POLITICS.

Sequoia 12 months ago

And you athiests don't get on here and act like I'm on your side. I'm a Christian, and nothing "offends" me more than when a government official prays. To see some jackarse claiming that CHRIST HIMSELF divinely inspired his budget item makes me want to wretch. Politicians who wrap themselves in the message of Christ just to con suckers is what offends me. These people who get up in front of cameras and bow their heads and pretend to be all solemn and prayerful are just fake actors. They're conning you with Christ's name, and it is blasphemy.

Granted, that's not the legal standard either. That's just my opinion.

John 12 months ago

And those "clear boundaries" set by activist courts are overturned QUITE OFTEN when represented by legal groups who are familiar with the activist's tactics.

tonto_goldberg 12 months ago

That one goes back to 1789 - intact. The cases cited by various commentators haven't changed it.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID