Posted on 05/08/2014 5:39:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled organized prayer and Bible study in public schools unconstitutional in the early 1960s, conservative Christians have been trying to re-enter the secular arena.
Take Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The case, The New York Times wrote last year, "...challenged a 1968 Pennsylvania law that reimbursed religious schools for some expenses, including teachers' salaries and textbooks, so long as they related to instruction on secular subjects also taught in the public schools. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger ... said the law violated the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion. The ruling set out what came to be known as the Lemon test, which requires courts to consider whether the challenged government practice has a secular purpose, whether its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and whether it fosters excessive government entanglement with religion."
Monday's 5-4 ruling by the Court upholding prayer at government meetings may have stretched the Lemon test.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the prayers offered at a town council meeting in Greece, New York, are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions.
If prayer is largely "ceremonial" and "traditional" then it has lost all meaning. One might as well chant "2-4-6-8 who do we appreciate!"
Since 1999, the Greece town council has opened a majority of their meetings with Christian prayers. Two people recently complained about the sectarian nature of the prayers and filed a lawsuit. In response, the town council began inviting members of other faiths to pray. These included a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation. Each faith has a different, even competing concept of God, which dilutes, at least for Christians, the purpose of praying before council meetings.
This case reinforces what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. Having experienced the negative effects on religion from a state church in England, they sought to prevent government from meddling in religion in America. They struck a brilliant balance in the establishment and free exercise clauses. Government would not establish a state church and believers (and nonbelievers) could freely exercise their personal faith (or lack thereof).
When the state defines what constitutes legitimate religion, the free exercise of faith suffers and the government violates the establishment clause by defining legitimate religious practice. Just ask Hobby Lobby President Steve Green, who challenged the Affordable Care Act's stipulation that he offer emergency contraceptives as part of his employees' health benefits, abortion being contrary to his religious beliefs.
The Greece town council, apparently more interested in seeking approval from the state than from God, was willing to water down its prayers in order to maintain a "tradition" and win Supreme Court approval. Why not just pray "to whom it may concern"?
Justices tried to draw distinctions between the prayers said before opening sessions of Congress (OK because Congress gets to make its own rules and Members are free to join in, or not), and a Christian prayer uttered at a public high school graduation (ruled unconstitutional in 1992).
There is nothing to prevent and much to recommend elected officials praying in private before a meeting. If the intent is to seek God and His direction, that is the proper way to do it, according to no less an authority than Jesus of Nazareth, who said: "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." (Matthew 6:6)
Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees when He said in verse 5 of the same chapter: "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."
While public prayers may be constitutionally acceptable, according to the 5-4 majority, there is a Higher Power that takes a dimmer view of them.
God save (and put some common sense into) this honorable court and town councils everywhere. Maybe we should pray, privately, toward that end.
Why not open meetings with a moment or “silent prayer or contemplations”?
Make that “of” silent prayer or contemplations”.
Just a thought here.......when the 2016 election rolls around, I hope everyone posting here on the premiere conservative site realizes that by ‘staying home’ to teach the party a lesson, you just may have other and more dire consequences to your decision.
Pray anyway.
In public.
Out loud.
Often.
If the people in that town want to pray to God in their town meetings and other assemblies, they can, and they will.
For instance, someone in the audience can stand up (unofficially and apparently impromptu) and lead the assembly in prayer aloud, while the town council and the audience bow their heads before God. Right? What’s the Court going to say about that?
Or everyone can gather outside the meeting-hall beforehand, and someone in the crowd can lead a prayer.
Or...[insert other solution here].
Whether the town adopts such a practice - or finds another solution - is dependent on the townspeople. And we’ll know whether or not they want to pray to God by watching to see if they do.
U.S. Constitution First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Attention public schools, the 1st amendment shall not be infringed.
Yep, even RINOs support a Republican President's choice for SCOTUS. Not to mention approval for all those Federal benches.
I hope we all think long and hard before 2014 elections because even if we win the Presidency, we need Congress.
I hear you and get what you're saying, but unfortunately so does the GOP-e who continues to throw up their people for elections and then use the "boogey-man" liberal "things could be worse" reason for voting for the GOP-e guy.
For once, I'd like to vote FOR a candidate -- his positions, his views, his plan and his integrity, rather than voting AGAINST his opponent because that person is so "bad".
See how that works?
In Texas we have two Repubs that are both so bad Dewhurst and Patrick, running for the same spot that I would be hard pressed to pick one in the primary.
I WILL vote for the winner of the Repub primary in that race however.
No atheist or Jew will be born again because of a prayer at a town meeting....any more than they will fall on his knees and profess Christianity because they passed a church.
As to atheists...As John Adams said..."That's their problem".
I agree with the first and the last part, but I don’t think it is necessary that you do it loud and in public. God will hear your prayers if you do them quietly in a room, then if you let everyone hear and see what you do
2008 was even worse. Look who we got in the People's House. We did get the House back in 2010 though so now we must do everything we can to get the Senate back, plus add more seats to the House
2012 was bad for us because there were some who did everything they could do that our nominee lost against the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The majority of our candidates were all good
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.