The Constitution of the United States of America specifically prohibits the inclusion of religion into government. That includes a prayer or invocation at the onset or at any time in any government related function. That prohibition is also applicable to the public schools.
Court decisions have upheld that any prayer or appeal to “God” is forbidden by the Constitution thus the law. The reason is that it may be offensive to even a single citizen including atheists and agnostics. Thus even non-sectarian prayer is in violation of this nation’s Constitution.
However, nonsectarian prayer is often tolerated because of its generic nature which can be applicable to all of most monolithic religious beliefs. But it too is illegal and offensive to among others whose faith may be among others: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Baha’i Faith, Shinto and even the very small groups such as Scientology or Zoroastrianism.*
Never the less the agenda for Tuesday's meeting shows that the Council in complete disregard of the Constitution has chosen to invite representatives of two faiths to give an Invocation.
I have removed a portion of the original posting because it was not relevant to the individual that was the trigger for this blog. I am posting it subsequently today deleting any reference to any one person and slightly edited.
I am expressing my concerns locally; but it would be another further embarrassment to Plainfield if someone would involve the ACLU or the SPLC or the ADL in a public exposure of this violation of the law.
*A list of 40 of the Worlds organized religions can be found at: www.religioustolerance.org/
Maybe the Council has been trying too hard to please everyone and they haven't done their homework. I'm a Christian, but perhaps a moment of silence at the beginning would be better. Let's hope for the future.
ReplyDeleteOld you are giving the Council too much credit for thinking. They gave as much thought to this as someone gives to throwing a pinch of spilt salt over their shoulder. It is just something they do without thought or meaning, out of habit. It never occurs to them that they might be stepping on someone else’s rights or what they might be doing violates both the intent and the spirit of our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the First Amendment was written to protect all of us from tyranny and in particular the tyranny of the majority. Invocations to reputed deities have no place in the public sphere. Our Constitution was designed to let each of us practice our beliefs privately and without the government by implication or law trying to tell us what our religious beliefs should be.
The invocation should be eliminated and if Council feels they must have some ceremonial ablution, have a Moment of Silence.
I left out 'Doc,' sorry.
ReplyDeleteNat. not as bad as my boo boo. I am old and some could add less flattering modifying nouns
ReplyDeleteI take great exception to Nat Singleton's mean-spirited comments and ignorant insinuations here--his lack of knowledge about constitutional history concerning legislative prayer speaks to his own shortcomings regarding "thinking." I do not like being lumped in with others whose thoughts and ideas about religion I have no knowledge of.
ReplyDeleteI do not pray at council meetings, nor do I pledge allegiance to the flag. I believe both these activities violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled nearly 30 years ago on legislative prayer, allowing it due to what they called the "unique history" of the U.S., in Marsh v. Chambers--read Justice Brennan's dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZD.html
Justice Marshall also dissented. Many municipalities and state legislatures have taken up the question of political prayer--the ones I know of have not gotten prayer banned--however, it has been ruled that the prayers be "non-denominational," as Plainfield's is designed to be. I still do not like it, and I do not participate in it.
However, it is not worth the cost to our city (or to me, personally) to pursue such a losing battle.
Rebecca
Addendum: A "moment of silence" is just as offensive and oppressive to those of us who feel that such moments also invoke a type of religious pressure. Folks are free to pray on their own whenever, and wherever, they'd like.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
Ps: I am a Christian.
Rebecca, I stand by my comments and I'm willing to defend them at anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Public prayer initiated by the government has no place in our secular society. I was speaking about Council as a whole to characterize how this decision got made. If not true tell us how the 'sausage got made.' I'm glad to see you agree and have finally posted in public about it (who knew). The issue is not that the prayer is 'non-denominational', it is that it is prayer. See Wikipedia: a 'Prayer is a form of religious practice that seeks to activate a volitional rapport to a deity through deliberate communication.' Whether it is to the Tooth Fariy, Zeus, God, Siva or Allah it violates the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion is that neither a Flag Salute nor Prayer is appropriate at meetings or athletic events. This includes all legislative bodies or their sub committees.
ReplyDeleteWe should hope that those entrusted with our government have enough intelligence to act for themselves and do not need “divine guidance” to function.
Likewise the Pledge of Allegiance need not be performed at inconsequential events that have nothing to do with the Nation’s safety or well being
I also find it ridiculous to treat a pop song made popular by Kate Smith as the National Anthem.
I will make the pledge to the flag out of habit. I do stand for the prayer at the Council meeting but it has no meaning for me. I can never forget being uncomfortable as a school child at the time of the “daily prayer “.
The crux of the matter is that we must be sensitive to the feelings of others especially local minorities.
It is a frightening and obviously potentially offensive concept to suggest that someone might invoke seditious thoughts such as, but not limited to: love, cooperation, brotherhood, peace, wisdom, charity, tolerance, etc. in a convocation at the beginning of any public meeting. These qualities are seditious and conspicuously offensive to so many of the world's 40 organized religions and undoubtedly to hundreds of others who are not so organized, that it is understandably proscribed. And, as a veteran, the concept of pledging allegiance to the flag which has bestowed upon me the abundant graces of having been fortunate enough to have been born in the United States of America,is totally repugnant.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to comment #9 which I posted as "anonymous" my name: BILL KRUSE.I am ashamed of myself for having omitted it.
ReplyDeleteApology not needed, Bill, but I thank you for coming out of the anonymous closet. Your name puts value to your comments.
ReplyDelete