Atheist to give opening prayer at Tulsa City Council meeting

[rug]

BY BILL SHERMAN
Tulsa World | Published: August 27, 2012

TULSA — An atheist will give the opening prayer Thursday before the Tulsa City Council meeting.

“As far as I know, I’ll be the first to offer a secular invocation,” said Dan Nerren, one of the founders of the Humanist Association of Tulsa.

Nerren is a retired railroad employee and a former Southern Baptist who said he became an atheist after reading a book about contradictions in the Bible.

He said several atheist groups have been petitioning the council for several years to halt sectarian prayers without success, but the council did agree to allow an invocation by a nontheist group.

http://newsok.com/atheist-to-give-opening-prayer-at-tulsa-city-council-meeting/article/3704534

Um . . . .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invocation

[MineralMan]

1. It won't be a prayer. It will be an invocation.

There is a difference.

I've done invocations for both government and private events, including a city council meeting. It's not a new thing, really. Atheists have spoken invocations many times at small government meetings. Generally, you just have to ask. I did in my city, and was scheduled in for the next meeting. No problem at all. I got some compliments, too.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Very nice. nt

[ZombieHorde]

2. The words "prayer" and "invocation" may not be the best choices in this case,

but I think this is still a nice, inclusive step forward.

[cbayer]

4. Agree and his message sounds very positive.

I like this very much.

[rug]

5. I don't see the harm. I don't see the benefit either.

Public meetings should not have prayers, invocations or pledges.

[ZombieHorde]

6. I agree completely. nt

[cbayer]

7. I agree with this as well, but as long as they have dug in their heels

about having one, this seems a very inclusive move.

[humblebum]

9. "Public meetings should not have prayers, invocations or pledges." - that

would be something new to American history and arguably unconstitutional.

[rug]

10. It would be new but it would be not be unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not require prayers, invocations or pledges.

[humblebum]

14. Certainly it does not require them. That goes without saying, but

forbidding them could be another question.

[rug]

15. I wasn't proposing forbidding them, simply that they should not take place.

It's poor policy.

[humblebum]

16. You are entitled to your opinion. nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

11. Please elaborate.

How the **** would the absence of such events be unconstitutional?

[cbayer]

12. According to the article, this issue has been heard by the Supreme Court and found not to

be unconstitutional. That certainly doesn't mean that not doing it would be unconsitutional, but legislative bodies have the right (apparently).

In Marsh v. Chambers, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that opening legislative sessions with prayer is “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country” and is not unconstitutional.

[humblebum]

18. I meant that trying to prevent them would probably be unconstitutional, as has

already been pointed out.

[Goblinmonger]

13. I wish Vegas did a line on how you would respond.

I'd make a killing. Of course the odds would be depressing because you are very predictable.

[humblebum]

17. I would say the same about yourself. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. Holy shit, I actually agree with you rug

That cracking sound you hear is the internets breaking.

[rug]

20. I expect we agree with a lot more or else we wouldn't be here.

Well, maybe not this Group specifically.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. Let me rephrase that

"Holy shit, I agree with something rug said in the Religion group." <-- that's what I meant.

[2ndAmForComputers]

23. More like an Alien vs. Predator situation IMHO.

[cleanhippie]

22. On that, we are in complete agreement.

[humblebum]

8. That is as it should be. Now no one can claim government establishment of anything. nt