We read:
"A court-ordered ban on prayers that end “in Jesus’ name?” It’s now a reality for public officials in North Carolina. On July 29, the state’s Forsyth County Board of Commissioners was dealt a major blow. The 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against the county, granting favor to two county residents who claimed they were offended when they heard the words “in Jesus’ name” prayed aloud during a board meeting. WXII-TV has more:
The 2-1 decision upheld a lower court ruling and was a victory for Janet Joyner and Constance Blackmon, who had sued following the December 2007 commission meeting before which a local religious leader prayed. The pastor thanked God for sending Jesus to die for the sins of mankind and concluded with “in Jesus’ name.” Beliefnet provides written responses from the justices:
“Legislative prayer must strive to be nondenominational so long as that is reasonably possible — it should send a signal of welcome rather than exclusion. It should not reject the tenets of other faiths in favor of just one,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in his ruling.
But, Judge Paul Niemeyer felt differently. Instead, he focused upon the fact that the county was open to adherents of any religious faith praying at meetings. Considering this fact, Forsyth County was not, in his view, wrong for allowing the prayer. He wrote:
“I respectfully submit that we must maintain a sacred respect of each religion, and when a group of citizens comes together, as does the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, and manifests that sacred respect — allowing the prayers of each to be spoken in the religion’s own voice — we must be glad to let it be.
Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) and the ACLU praised the court’s ruling. The ADL called the decision “a clear victory for religious freedom.”
According to Beliefnet, seven of the eight Forsyth County commissioners involved in the case say that they will accept an offer for representation from Christian attorneys. The Alliance Defense Fund will handle their case, picking up all costs and seeking to take the debate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Source
If the prayer had been led by a Muslim and he had included the usual "Peace be upon him" about Mohammed, I wonder how would the ACLU have taken that?
9 comments:
"If the prayer had been led by a Muslim and he had included the usual "Peace be upon him" about Mohammed, I wonder how would the ACLU have taken that?"
Free pass of course.
Not a whisper from the Libtards of the ACLU or the MSM.
When will someone sue against one of these bans on two constitutionally grounds: One, that such a ban violates the 1st Amendment right to free speech (no one is yelling 'Fire' in crowded theater or encouraging a mob to riot), and Two, that such a ban violates the 1st Amendment right to practice religion (if you don't want to pray, then don't).
We need to make a ACLU 2.0 led by conservatives to battle them.
If you have to modify your prayer to suit a government requirement then the requirement itself is a violation of your constitutional right to freely exercise your religion.
Only and idiot of a judge would let a suit like this last more than a few moments in a courtroom, of course it's too bad there are so many idiotic judges.
There's no law against praying at this kind of meeting, and prayer is harmless, so this lawsuit is rather puerile.
Still, why bother praying at the meeting? What in the world does Jesus dying for your sins have to do with the County Board of Commissioners?
Matt said: Still, why bother praying at the meeting?
Politicians have always wanted the imprimatur of divine guidance on their decisions, otherwise they'd be responsible for those same decisions.
Exactly - what does religious belief have to do with a secular social event - where the attendees may or may not be religious or even of the same "denomination" as the implied words spoken.
Put prayer where it's appropriate - in religious occasions / contexts!!!
"If the prayer had been led by a Muslim and he had included the usual "Peace be upon him" about Mohammed,"
I wonder how many people would be posting about how the Muslims are trying to take over the country and, how people better wake up and stop them. Be carefule what you wish for...
Anonymous 2:27 said...
"If you have to modify your prayer to suit a government requirement then the requirement itself is a violation of your constitutional right to freely exercise your religion..."
You are quite right. Also, that government requirement is actually violating it's own "claim", (albeit imaginary) of a seperation of church and state.
Post a Comment