We read:
"Now, there’s another battle brewing in Wilmington, Delaware, over recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at public meetings. On Wednesday, a hearing was held in a lawsuit that aims to stop the Sussex County Council from reciting the well-known prayer before each meeting.
Interestingly, much of the argument is centered around whether or not the prayer is explicitly Christian. The county’s attorney, J. Scott Shannon, argues that the prayer is generic and, thus, doesn’t favor any particular faith. The plaintiffs, of course, disagree.
The council has been reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each Tuesday morning meeting for the past 41 years. The action, according to The News Journal, has been taken under both Democratic and Republican majorities.
But four residents are asking U.S. District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark to rule that this action violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS), a church-state separatist group, is defending the four citizens who would like to see the recitation ruled unconstitutional.
Attorneys for the council believe that a 1983 ruling — March v. Chambers — provides a foundation that defends the use of the Lord’s Prayer. In the ruling, it was found that a government-funded chaplain in Nebraska was constitutionally able to say a prayer before legislative sessions.
“It is not required that a prayer be inoffensive to all or that it be all-inclusive,” Shannon argued, going on to claim that Jesus Christ — a Jew — had originally uttered the prayer. ”(Jesus) was not offering a Christian prayer in the Christian tradition because no Christian tradition existed,” Shannon continues.
“I’m afraid you all might have brought me a difficult case because there is no reference to Jesus or Allah” [in the Lord's prayer] Stark said.
Source
17 comments:
While I have always considered "The Lord's Prayer" to be Christian by Tradition, the defendant's lawyer is right - there is no explicit reference to any particular "god" or "religious figure" in the prayer. About the only point they can make is that it's "sexist," referring to "Our Father."
If the plaintiff's win, it would require 1) ignoring precedence, and 2) requiring that prayers at ALL government functions either be curtailed or the wording mandated (established???) by the state!
Now you can see why the radical left worked so hard, for so long, to eliminate the concept of majority rule. Four people can now disrupt the lives of tens-of-millions without those tens-of-millions having anyhting to say about it.
What is the LORDS PRAYER offensive to some wiccan wacko and satanists wank in their black atire?
Yet another example of the quasi-theocratic nature of the US. Whether Christian or not, such prayers to a deity in a public arena, that should otherwise be neutral as regards to religion, is nevertheless carried out. It doesn't matter if it's been done for a long time and by whom, its practice is questionable if it isn't a de-facto theocratic country. Even a Presidential candidate, or anyone seeking high office in the US must at least pretend to be religious, and preferably Christian, if he or she expects to be elected. If that's not an indication of a quasi-theocratic country I don't know what is!!
Another direct result of the so called separation of church and state which isnt in the constitution
The government may not require nor prohibit prayer. If everyone is required to say the Lord's Prayer, then Sussex county is our of line.
If participation is voluntary, there should be no problem.
Someone asked on another thread what is meant by 'quasitheocracy'. Here's the definition of quasi:
QUASI
1 : having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes (a quasi corporation)
2 : having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent (a quasi contract)
In context of our discussion it would seem definition #1 applies. We are not a theocracy run by a particular church. However, our system of laws is influenced to a great degree by Christian theology, our money declares belief in God, our pledge of allegiance declares the nation to be under God's guidance, and it seems that to be elected to the office of president a person must be a practicing Christian.
Use The Name Luke (?) pointed out to me in a past thread, we look at candidates and judge their political philosophy by religious beliefs. I accept his statement, he is correct.
Our present president spent twenty some years attending a church which seemed to espouse a doctrine of hate for the U.S., it's social and economic policies.
Given those doctrines, and President Obama's acceptance of them, the public should have had a good idea of what he meant by 'Change' based on what his church taught.
To all ungodly hordes, they should start offering prayers to zeus and jupiter,, or maybe to the god of the lib turds, pluto.
Having a cross on public land, or as part of a city logo, or even having a nativity scene at Christmas is one thing. I don't understand why some people can get so upset about them. Having to see it as I walk or drive past it doesn't cost me anything.
On the other hand, having to sit through a prayer is a waste of my time. Why can't people just say their prayers privately? Why can't people just keep their religion in their churches and their homes? Why do they constantly feel the need to cram their mysticism down my throat?
The only excuse seems to be mob rule.
-L
Bird needs to get a dictionary or an education.
If religious views in the public square have to be neutral, then that applies to all speech. No more talking about pro-choice or pro-life beliefs. No rallies to support gay rights, because some disagree and don't want to hear it. If neutrality is what you want, silence is the only thing that works.
Anonn 4:03 needs to GET A LIFE PLEASE
6:56 Are you trying to be cute of dumb? It depends on the public meeting and if those who are there were made aware of its purpose. If it is advertized as a christian prayer meeting and has a licence then nobody can be offended by what they hear if they go there. Similarly if it is a licence for a gay parade then nobody should be surprised or offended if they put themselves in eye-shot or ear-shot.
4:41 - Try to be cute? No, its just the end-game of all the PC crap and the end-game of the perpetually offended. But let's take your argument on. I'm glad you feel the way you do. Of course it isn't outlined in the Constitution or the First Amendment that way, but it is an opinion and you are entitled to it. So, in a town meeting then those who are offended by prayer can momentarily leave the room while the others exercise their rights. If this doesn't work for you, then we can't have any controversial topics come up in the meeting, such as same-sex marriage or anything, because that might offend someone in the audience as well.
Wow 5:04 you just don't seem to understand the concept of holding a public meeting where the attendees ought to be made aware of what may take place and should not be surprised by unexpected content, in which case the organizers would be being disrespectful to what had become a captive audience, and knowing they might be embarrassing some or many of them.
Wow 5:18. Please cite the language in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that states when holding a public meeting the attendees ought to be made aware of what may take place and should not be surprised by unexpected content, in which case the organizers would be being disrespectful to what had become a captive audience, and knowing they might be embarrassing some or many of them.
Wow 1:42. Please cite the language in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it states you shouldn't be rude to your mother. I guess it's okay to disrespect her then.
Hey 3:48, it isn't a question of whether is is rude or not, there was lawsuit about this. The question is whether or not it is legal to block it. Since there is no exception in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to freedom of religion, then no, it isn't legal to block it.
Post a Comment