Public Prayer and the Establishment Clau se

“A Wiccan is suing Chesterfield County for not allowing her to add her name to a list of clergy invited to give an invocation at the beginning of meetings. (STORY)

County Attorney Steven L. Micas is quoted as saying that if stripped of all control the board would have to allow invocations by the white-supremacist World Church of the Creator and other fringe groups.

Isn’t that exactly the point?”

“I believe it is, violin.

Strange how the strong advocates for prayer in school turn ghostly pale when the white supremacist want a turn at the wheel.”

“Where's the story?

I think if invocations are invited at the start of these meetings, then the board has to be fair and either allow all religions to do their "thing" or abide by the "seperation of Church and State" idea.

And of course, it's always the Wiccans that are getting pointed out in these situations to make it seem like they are a bunch of annoying nut jobs...”

“That's weird. I think I got that one right. Anywho, here's the story (cut&paste):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030722-093712-7047r.htm”

“Ah yes, the old seperation of Church and State thing...

Would someone please show me where this is stated in the Constitution of the United States?

Bill of Rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Seems that disallowing invocations is a bit counter to the free exercise thereof portion.”

“So why is it okay to disallow religions other than christianity?”

“Deeddawg: Think!
If invocations are at government meetings and they are open only to monotheists and not pagans, then government is respecting an establishment of religion, taking sides with some religious expressions and not others.”

“pedxing... read!

or maybe I wasn't clean enough for folks.

I agree, if you allow one you have to allow all. Even ones you don't agree with. That's how it ought to be.”

“Seems like the only way to really make no law respecting an establishment of religion is to separate religion and government.”

“unless, of course, you want an invocation before each meeting that lasts three years, or something.”

“Seems like the only way to really make no law respecting an establishment of religion is to separate religion and government

In a sense, yes. But it gets taken too far by folks who don't comprehend what the Bill of Rights actually says. They forget about the clause which prohibits Congress from prohibiting the free expression of religion.

If the majority of members of a council want to observe some common religious practice before a meeting, then they ought to be able to do so. To say they cannot would go against the free expression of religion.”

“I don't know why it has to be a big official thing. I pray whenever I want, where ever I want. I'm sure those peeps at the meeting could do the same, silently before their meetings.”

“Silently or aloud, but not in an official capacity. In other words, once the meeting has started, you're on government time.”

“Just what I said Phad, silently before the meeting. You don't need a minister to help you talk to God.”

“Certainly, NG. You and I agree.”

“These issues are a whole lot of nothing. The separation of church and state is good and necessary, but the earnest striving for good exhibited in most religions is important and can't be ignored.

I, personally, would have allowed the Wiccan to give the invocation, however...

...is this woman a Wiccan minister, or whatever? If the structure of Wicca is diffuse, then why should any Wiccan have a spot in an order of clergy? Average, run-of-the-mill Catholics and Jews don't usually give invocations. This woman needs to actually be a leader.

...is there an actual Wiccan community in this area? County meetings are representative meetings. If she is the only Wiccan in this area, then I'd have no problem pushing her aside for a large Buddhist, Christian or Muslim group to be represented.

No one is stopping this woman from practicing her religion. However, I'd think that the religion needs to have some larger community influence to be reflected at a public meeting.”

“The Bill of Rights addresses whether Congress can make laws either imposing or forbidding religious practices.

Therefore the issue of who, if anyone, should be allowed to pray at a public meeting cannot be resolved either way by appealing to the "Establishent clause." The federal legislature is not permitted to forbid the Wiccan's prayer, nor are they permitted to force it on that local governmental body.

I believe those who run the meeting should be given wide latitude to run the meeting in a way that seems appropriate to them. If the community is not pleased, their recourse is to act during the next electoral cycle.

I think it would be a great perversion of both the phrasing and the intent of the Bill of Rights to suggest that it gives any citizen a "right" to officially open public meetings with a prayer.

I also think it would be a great perversion of both the phrasing and the intent of the Bill of Rights to suggest that it dictates the removal of religious expression from public life, even on "government" property or during a government meeting.”

“is this woman a Wiccan minister, or whatever? If the structure of Wicca is diffuse, then why should any Wiccan have a spot in an order of clergy? Average, run-of-the-mill Catholics and Jews don't usually give invocations. This woman needs to actually be a leader

Witches... coven leaders, or something.

This also raises the question about structures of faith. What if one of the basic tenets of your faith is a lack of leaders, as in the case of most pagans?

I also have an issue with the majority rules in regard to religious observance.”

“I also think it would be a great perversion of both the phrasing and the intent of the Bill of Rights to suggest that it dictates the removal of religious expression from public life, even on "government" property or during a government meeting."
Fritz
02:03:18 PM
07/25/03

The problem with this comes in the fact that those who are not of this faith and are there for the government portion of the meeting have to be exposed to religious practices of others choosing in order to access the governmental body.”

“ Lee v. Weisman explains the Court's position pretty well.”

“I believe it's an all or nothing thing. Total seperation of church and state is a must. If you allow one group in you have to allow them all in. I'd much prefer a total seperation of the religions than a complete mixture. I don't like when I go somewhere and prayer of another faith is forced on me so I'd rather see no prayer at all.”

“I'm with nigal. The supreme court be damned!

:)”

“The problem with this comes in the fact that those who are not of this faith and are there for the government portion of the meeting have to be exposed to religious practices of others choosing in order to access the governmental body.

Though neither phrase exists in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights, it has been said that the Establishment clause gives us "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

Finding in it some protection from being exposed to the free exercise of religion by others is quite a stretch.”

“But...I see no reason why there can't be a moment of silence prior to a meeting... you wanna acknowledge your personal God, go for it, you don't have one, no prob, you're not forced to listen to anything. Seems this accommodates everyone.”

“I think this sentence gives considerable insight on the Establishment Clause.

"The Establishment Clause was inspired by the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce."

What better way to begin indoctrination other than to limit the views that can be expressed?”

“"I'm with nigal. The supreme court be damned!

:)"


Come on Phaed! I was speaking on a personal level. The fact that christian prayer and rights/rituals are so accepted but others aren't is a bother to me. I'm not saying anyone should be not allowed to practice their religion but it should not be forced on others at a governmental level.”

“wanderer, I'm all for the moment of silence thing too.”

“Actually..."separation of church and state" is another phrase that is nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the idea that religious expression should be banned from government meetings is clearly counter the intent of the founders.”

“If you don’t have freedom from religion you can’t have freedom of religion.
If you don’t have freedom from speech you can’t have freedom of speech.
If you don’t have the right not to vote you can’t have the right to vote.
Without the constitutional right to refrain from these things the government could force you to do them and the government cannot force you to do these things it’s unconstitutional. The constitutional right not to do something is essential without it the constitutional and the bill of rights aren’t worth the paper they were written on.”

“Commandment #11 - Keep thy religion to thyself.”

“If you don't have a right to vote when others can see you doing it, then you don't have a right to vote.

If you don't have freedom to practice your religion when others might see you practicing it, then you don't have freedom to practice your religion.”

“There's an organized group in Australia that worships Yoda, true story.”

“Must Hike, you have presented a straw man.

No one here or anywhere has suggested that citizens don't have the right to not practice any religion. Only, that they can't ask the federal government to protect them from knowing that others are choosing to practice one.”

“My last post would have been better put this way:

No one here or anywhere has suggested that citizens don't have the right to refrain from practicing religion. Only, that they can't ask the federal government to protect them from observing the free exercise of religion by others.”

“Fritz my only point is that you can’t have one without the other. The bill of rights only protects you from the government. The government can’t force you to have or not to have religion therefore you have to have a constitutional right from something in order to have a constitutional right to something. I’m not using this as a defense to what the story was about. I think it’s silly. It was when you said that there is not the constitutional right from something and all I’m saying is that you can’t have a right to something with out a right from something. As I said without both sides of the coin the bill of rights is useless.”

“You're a slick one chili. Surely you read that LEE v. WEISMAN is specific to a school setting so it is different than Marsh v. Chambers which said prayer before a legislative session was constitutionally acceptable.”

“I'm with Nigal and Wanderer.

all the rest of you: off my planet!”

“must hike...I need to know how you define "freedom from religion."

Depending on your definition, I expect that I will either agree with you, or I will claim that your version of "freedom of and from religion" is impossible to implement in a society with more than one citizen. :)”

“Actually I agree with Phaedrus, wanderer and Nigal. Who'd have ever thought that could happen?”

“Fritz, The lines get blurred between freedom of expression and insitutionalized acceptance of specific religion(s). To me, the clear way to avoid the problem in the case of government is to not offer the governmental environment as a venue for any religious ceremony. What people do before and after is completely another matter.”

“No kidding, Vio, talk about a weird alliance!”

“Phaedrus...you might be right. :)

I could possibly be convinced that opening a government meeting with prayer is a bad thing. But I don't think I could be convinced that it is unconstitutional.”

“From the article:

County Attorney Steven L. Micas told U.S. Magistrate Dennis W. Dohnal that the board is within its rights in requiring invocations to reflect "a monotheistic faith consistent with Judeo-Christian tradition."


Isn't that pretty much "establishment"?

Any and all or none at all.”

“Fritz maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying. I’m not saying that the freedom from religion says they can’t have a prayer. All I’m saying is that someone has an equal right from something as they do to something. I thought you were stating that the constitution did not protect that.”

“So nobody here wants to acknowledge "The Force" as their belief system? Hmmm...

I'm off to the mountains in 30 minutes, will be in my own cathedral for the rest of the weekend!”

“Good discussion. Thanks, all.”

“We can all thank God we don't live in a country with a state religion.”

“Uhh yeah. Thanks, God.”

“I have to stop. I’m trying to work, post on T.T. and chew gum at the same time. My head hurts.”

“Another perspective...

My dad - a Catholic deacon - used to do these things before city council meetings. This is really just about the most boring practice ever. Every once in a while I'd go with him. Eeeeks. If they wanted to cease the spread of Wicca, they should have let her speak.

I teach in a small, rural town. When two high school students were killed by a drunk driver, THE local minister came out to the school and said a prayer at a staff meeting. The school organized the funeral, which was held in the district gymnasium. This minister helped people to make sense of the tragedy.

The public sphere is where the important issues and events play out. Religion is tremendously important to many people. Keeping it out would reduce adherents to a shadow existence.”