Florida County Commission Votes to Exclude Atheists From Giving Invocations

[SecularMotion]

Florida’s Brevard County Commission may be testing the limits of a recent Supreme Court decision, allowing sectarian invocations before government meetings in some circumstances. The Commission voted unanimously to exclude atheists from those allowed to give invocations.

The commissioners voted to send a letter to David Williamson, founder of the Central Florida Freethought Community, indicating that his group doesn’t qualify to deliver the invocation because it is defined as “an opening prayer, presented by members of our faith community.”

“The prayer is delivered during the ceremonial portion of the county’s meeting, and typically invokes guidance for the County Commission from the highest spiritual authority, a higher authority which a substantial body of Brevard constituents believe to exist,” the letter reads. “The invocation is also meant to lend gravity to the occasion, to reflect values long part of the county’s heritage, and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens in Brevard County.”

In the Supreme Court’s Town of Greece decision, the majority emphasized that the town’s policy in question was not itself discriminatory. “[L]eaders maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation.” The almost exclusively Christian prayers, they said, are the result of demographics not discrimination. The town simply happens to be made up of almost exclusively Christian congregations.

http://bjconline.org/florida-county-votes-to-exclude-atheists-from-commission-invocations-082014/

[hollysmom]

1. Well that settles it, not that it was a question

I will never move to Florida

I have a friend who keeps bugging me to move there, my attitude is no way. Lets see if she posts after me?

[Brettongarcia]

3. Mother Nature will punish Florida: global warming melts the ice sheet, and floods Florida.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

All those Red State bubbas in their fuel-inefficient Nas-Car vehicles and coal-burning electrical plants and Fundamentalist churches, will see the ocean rise up and swallow them into the water!

: )

These are the actual climactic change projections by the way; most of FLA is low-lying, and disappears under rising seas, as the polar ice caps melt.

Fortunately it will all happen so slowly that no individual person will drown. But FLA is a huge loser in global warming: half the state disappears under the rising ocean.

Yes, there is justice.

[Lordquinton]

8. that must be the reason for the extreme religiosity

If god is punishing them then obviously they aren't doing enough to appease him, so up the hate because their god hates a lot of people.

[Brettongarcia]

9. That's well said! Though my moral would be simpler: Florida is destroyed because of evil polluters

The problem was Republicans and others all over the US and the whole world. Who prayed to God, but didn't have enough reverence for ... Nature.

They had too many D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge, fundamentalist churches. And too little respect for science and nature.

They polluted until we got global warming ... and the end of Florida, for a start.

Next?

Lack of respect for science and the natural world was the real problem.

[Brettongarcia]

2. This is a huge problem: what if only atheists are excluded from the privileges according Religion?

Very significant privileges are given to religious folks: certain exemptions from taxes and so forth. These amount to a significant amount of additional rights, and income, given to religious folks, and no one else. Religious people are equal - and even more equal - than others.

What can be done? One response to this that is currently being explored, seems to be this: suggesting that Atheism is a kind of religion. Or say, that it exists in the sphere of the questions pertaining to Religion.

Another response is to get more serious about making sure no religion is privileged; including removing tax exemptions for churches. Apparently one Federal Judge (in Colorado?) did this in the last year or two.

[rogerashton]

4. The term is "invocation."

In the context, it presupposes a God, so atheists and agnostics would be excluded by definition. Deists and don't-know-don't-carists too, I suspect. Indeed -- taking the third subheading in my dictionary app -- a case could be made that the term is specifically Christian.

Point being that the Supreme Court's decision, constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, is an establishment of Christian religion. But what did you expect of this Supreme Court?

[safeinOhio]

6. Time to bring in...

Flying Spaghetti Monster to save the world.

[cbayer]

5. Disgraceful. I can't see how they could win this in court.

[Brettongarcia]

7. The Constitution, its 1st Amendment unfortunately, was vague and equivocal on Religion

The 1st Amendment, the "Establishment Clause," said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Next it adds "or abridging the freedom of speech."

Many of the words here have two or more different meanings: "establishment" might be a noun or a verb, signifying an individual establishment. Though it has been take to mean no "establishment" of any official religion. "Respecting" is also ambiguous.

However the great difficulty in freedom of religion means that freedom of one religion, often means restriction for another. So if you say the Lord's Prayer in town hall, then you are not saying or allowing say, a Jewish quote from the Torah. Furthermore, this is also restrictive not only if there are no other religions or atheists attending (unlikely), but it also enters into the public record; suggesting a record of bias, in city minutes. Preserved for posterity.

Likely this reflects the fact that there are now about 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court. And the fact that about two years ago the US Bishops spent a week or so muttering darkly that they would be taking active but unspecified moves; to protect their Catholic idea of Freedom of religion. This they hinted furthermore, extends far beyond the contraceptive clause of Obamacare.

Who paid off who? Who pressured who?

If we knew more about the Vatican Bank, that might help.