We read:
"In a remarkable 2-1 split decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which presides over the four states of the Carolina's and the Virginias) invalidated the policy of Forsyth County, NC that allowed prayers to be offered before meetings of the County Council. The court acknowledged that the county policy was "neutral and proactively inclusive." However, the court's view of the Constitution places new limits on how a private citizen can pray finding that public invocations cannot have "sectarian references" that are too "frequent."
The decision is troubling on many fronts. It is out of step with many other federal courts that have considered the validity of public invocations, including the United States Supreme Court. It ignores the religious heritage and history of our nation. But more troubling is the impact of the court's decision on prayer itself. The court decision ignores a key purpose of a public invocation. It requires the government to censor private prayers and engage in comparative theology. The majority opinion punishes a county for the demographic make-up of the community and signals to people from many faith traditions that their prayers are not welcome.
America's founders opened public meetings with prayer that included express references to the Christian faith, and the County Commissioners of Forsyth County should be able to do the same.
The words of the First Amendment have not changed. If the Constitution protects prayer, then it protects the rights of people to pray consistently with the dictates of their own conscience, even when praying at a public meeting. Nothing gives the government more power to establish religion than to have the government tell people how and to whom they should pray.
In the past four years, five different federal court cases have upheld public invocation policies like the one adopted Forsyth County. The decision of the 4th Circuit is out of step with these other federal courts and out of step with the U.S. Constitution.
Source
20 comments:
Is the entire United States in the 21st century "enslaved" to the religious mindset of the 18th century ex-Brits of the 13 colonies? Albeit some of the so-called Founding Fathers had ambiguous religious views, being deists, freemasons, etc. The influential Thomas Payne was even anti-religious.
Does not the decision itself violate the often-quoted, (albeit imaginary) "separation of church and state" doctrine?
Also, is this court not the perfect reason to bring back public hangings of incompetent and corrupt public officials who routinely defy the will of the people?
I would expect this type of decision from the 9th circus errr I mean circuit court not the 4th!
Sorry - not 'Payne' but "Thomas Paine" - the British radical author of "Common Sense", "Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason".
Payne also found himself persona non grata with the Founding Fathers over his atheistic views and actions, primarily over what he did in France.
Only three of the men who signed the Constitution were Deists, including Benjamin Franklin, the man who actually started the practice of praying in Congress.
This decision is obviously wrong, as the First Amendment says "free exercise", and their decision allows no such thing.
The first thing that popped into my mind was this similar response to such an edict by ruling authorities:
And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
— Acts 4:18–20
If the government chooses to create a direct conflict with God, then men are forced to choose who to obey. I'm with Peter and John.
Pray on people!
PS: Not only were Peter and John talking about "religion", but they were also talking about actual events which they were eyewitnesses to; in other words, truth.
It requires the government to censor private prayers....
Atheism is a faith, as surely as any other, and this is just another attempt to establish a theocracy, in this case an atheistic one.
Anon (aka Troll) 2:21,
So you looked up Deism after our last discussion on this topic, eh? Well, it's a start.
Next step: recognition that voluntarily choosing a religion is no form of enslavement; even using scare quotes can't change that.
This ruling is not necessarily a bad thing, because it hopefully will lead to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court who has upheld the freedom of public prayer in the past.
Luke,
IIRC, Paine was a Deist, not an atheist. His opposition to organized religion was focused against religious hierarchies (particularly their worldly corruptions), not against belief in God.
Perhaps there's a much larger, and even more important issue here. Is there far too much power invested in our judicial system?
Is there far too much power invested in our judicial system?
Short Answer: yes.
Long Answer: The problem is that to amend the constitution legislatively takes years of effort; to amend it judicially takes but the stroke of a pen. A quicker way of correcting judicial activism is sorely needed.
E.G. a 5/9 court decision could be overridden by a 5/9 legislative vote, at least for a length of time. Not sure how prefect it'd be, or not, but something is definitely needed short of a constitutional amendment or an impeachment of the judges.
would they ban the prayer if they were led by a moose-slim iman? I doubt it. I think they would have a fatwa on their asses so fast.
would they ban the prayer if they were led by a moose-slim iman? I doubt it. I think they would have a fatwa on their asses so fast.
Actually, the fact there was no prayer from Muslims was part of the decision.
Basically, the town let any clergy or representative from a non religious group offer a prayer or moment of silence. The clergy were given guidelines as to the content of the prayer which were consistent with past Supreme Court rulings.
To make things fair, the city said filling the prayer "slots" were on a first come, first serve basis, and restricted clergy from appearing more than twice in 2 years.
Christian pastors signed up. Rabbis, Imans, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, did not. The result was a steady stream of prayers from Christians.
The 4th Circuit ruled the steady stream was un-Constitutional.
The box the Court placed itself in is mind boggling. It rightfully says the town cannot promote a religion, but in order to make all prayer legal, the town must do more to seek out prayers from other religions. In other words, the town had to actively promote a religious activity from a particular religion.
The dissent argues the town does not have a diverse religious population and the choice of whether to offer a prayer is the choice of the congregations, and not the town. The town argued it was being totally neutral.
The majority dismissed that by saying the population make up of the town doesn't matter. The town needed to be more proactive in getting clergy to to the town hall meetings even if there were no clergy willing to do so.
The majority also said the town must approve the prayers being offered lest they "offend" someone. The ruling actually states that as religion is deeply personnel, the town must assure that prayers do not offend people. What is stunning in this ruling is the majority says the perceived offense felt by people outweighs any First Amendment right of speech or religion.
Prolixious Stinky: when "atheism" had a rather different meaning in the 18th century, those who described themselves as "deist" would be today called at least "agnostic" and probably "atheist" (as the two are often the same in practice as few claim to have absolute knowledge about the non-existence of a god, which is impossible on logical grounds since proving a negative is usually impossible).
And by the way Stinky, how the f-h do you establish a theocracy with a non-theocracy? You are claiming that theocracy can be its opposite - how cutely Alice-in-Wonderland!
Anon 2;43,
Wow, you're really intimidated by me, aren't you, to be running to the thesaurus and all. I'll take it as a compliment. You have the modern habit of rushing to the sneer for its own sake, and it clouds your reason.
Per your args, the word atheist has (and had) a clear meaning, which is why the Deists called themselves Deists. They coined a new word (kinda co-opting an obscure one at the time, really) because atheist was the incorrect one to describe themselves.
Look, here's a quote from a man you classify as an atheist:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
-- Thomas Paine
Hmm, an atheist who believes in God? No, a Deist who believes; there's a diff.
As for the rest of your little screed, theocracy is the rule of those with the same religious faith; in practice, that includes atheists. The enforcement of atheistic speech requirements - no mention of religion allowed, even when totally voluntary - is a clear example.
Zero is a number, remember? And atheism is a faith.
I rather suspect you had to run to a dictionary to find out what educated people use as a matter of course, but never mind.
As for "intimidated" by you - don't flatter yourself!
And as for "sneering", you took that intiative, as I don't recall ever "engaging" you before (thankfully!).
You forget (or never knew) how personally dangerous it was to be called an "atheist" in the 18th century, as it had many unpleasant and subversive overtones (ref. the terrible religious wars thoughout Europe in the 16-17th centuries); so people who were "closet-atheists" had to describe themselves as "deists" as a compromise, as it was okay and non-committal to believe in a "god" of some sort as the ultimate explanation of everything.
As for Zero, it is not a number but a theoretical negative value; and positive does not equal negative unless you live in an Orwellian world, as you clearly do!
Remember you chose to take the intiative in being personally rude to me, so don't expect a NON-response to that!
Anon,
Whatever, dude. You reason from a conclusion, said conclusion being your need to sneer, a need based in ego not intellect. Your prob, not mine.
It's the main reason you have been entrusted with so little responsibility in your life; other people see the same thing. It comes thru even in an anonymous comments section.
Stinky - It is quite evident that you are "projecting" again. Please refrain from annoying other posters (and you had the cheek to call me a "troll" - huh!)
And I see you don't offer any proper response to my points - well don't bother now, because I won't bother to respond again to such a time-waster as yourself!)
It just seems you are "projecting" by attacking posters who weren't attacking you. You do not properly respond to the points I made so I guess you can't. So please don't respond to me again, because I won't to you.
obs. 2:59 is a repeat of 2:31 as the former did not seem to "take". Evidently there is sometimes a delay subject to moderator approval.
Post a Comment