Prayer in Public Meetings - the Inclusiveness Argument

[el_bryanto]

The recent SCOTUS Case appears to have been decided on the theory that the local government was inclusive, while those suing argued that the local government was not inclusive. Setting aside that specific case for a moment (I think the SCOTUS got it wrong, but I'm not surpised) lets look at inclusiveness.

Imagine a community - Anytown USA. The Board of County Commissioners once a year does a survey of the town and for the past year they have determined that there are 50 percent Christians (of various faiths), 20 percent Jewish, 10 percent Atheists/Agnostics, 8 Percent Muslims, 6 Percent Buddhists, and 6 Percent Sikhs. So they say "Well we have 50 meetings this year - we'll set aside 25 meetings for Christian Ministers and Priests, 10 meetings for Rabbis, 5 meetings for readings from the local free thought organizations, 4 meetings for Muslims and 3 meetings each for Buddhists and Sikhs." Would that be an acceptable solution? Or does that still violate the separation of Church and State?

Bryant

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	That system could work
	0 (0%)
	That system could work, but such a system would be corrupted to exclude non-Christians
	0 (0%)
	That system wouldn't work, because even uncorrupted it's still a violation of the separation of Church and State
	2 (100%)
	These bullshit polls never work
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Shoulders of Giants]

1. No tax period funded prayer period.

[el_bryanto]

2. When you say funded you mean that the people aren't allowed to pay

the ministers or rabbis to come in and pray?

Bryant

[Shoulders of Giants]

6. Tax payers still pay for the building and the event expenses.

[el_bryanto]

8. But the purpose of the meeting isn't to have a prayer

If it was a prayer breakfast or something like that - an event built around prayer I could see the financial argument more.

Bryant

[Shoulders of Giants]

9. Then what purpose does the prayer serve?

Its tax payer funded religion.

[951-Riverside]

3. Not only is this practice unconstitutional, it is anti-christian

Matthew 6:6

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[MADem]

4. When you say "set aside for" you're talking opening/closing prayers, or something like that?

I'm guessing you'd also want the faith/otherwise groups to bid for the meeting days near their major holidays, which would probably work so long as Christmas, Ramadan, Chanukah, etc. don't line right up in the ballpark as they rarely but sometimes do.

I know a lot of people get excited by this topic, but it doesn't rile me up overmuch, so long as there is a light touch, it's not didactic, and everyone's included. I have the ability to tune stuff out that doesn't appeal to me, and I don't feel that everything has to be geared towards my personal desires.

I guess my answer is "I really don't care so long as people don't act like noxious assholes."

[LeftinOH]

5. Meetings are a drag, no matter what. Get on with the

friggin' meeting and go pray at home ....or at church.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. The establishment clause means...

that we can't have a state religion, like the Church of England, not that we have to exclude religion. The question isn't about prayer, but about the dominance of Christian prayer.

Personally, I don't like opening civil meetings with a prayer, but Congress itself opens with a prayer. We open with the Pledge of Allegiance, which I'm not thrilled with either but don't dare complain. My point would be that if we haven't made it clear where our loyalties lie by now, why bother... I know a few others think it silly, too, but would also prefer not to say it out loud.