One Atheist's View on Public Prayers

[MineralMan]

I'm a fairly old man, at 68, and have been an atheist since 1964. I'm also politically active, so I've sat in many places waiting for some government meeting to begin, so I could offer my comments during public hearings and other opportunities to speak. That means that I've sat through hundreds of invocations by some religious person before those meetings began. And that's not saying anything about other public functions where prayers are offered up before the commencement of whatever event is on the calendar.

My consistent response is an eye-roll and a glance around the room. Normally, what I notice is inattention on the part of most of the people present. I've never really understood the reason for such prayers, and it seems to me that most of the people in attendance share that viewpoint.

Should they be prohibited? Well, I'd rather they didn't happen, but as an adherent of one of the minority philosophies, I really don't expect it. Such prayers, which are usually some sort of exhortation to make good decisions, based on the majority philosophy, never really seem pertinent to the issues being addressed. They are simply pro forma utterances that are, for some reason or another, assumed to be necessary. I think they're unnecessary and of no value.

I ignore them, as I believe most of the people in attendance do. I'm there for some reason or another, either to voice my opinion or to enjoy whatever event is on the program. These invocative prayers are extraneous to all of that. I don't protest them, generally, although I have, on occasion, spoken in place of such a thing, after asking that the atheist perspective be represented from time to time. When I have, I've been ignored, too, just as are the more typical invokers.

Only when such prayers somehow call for exclusion of other points of view do I actually protest, and I've had to do that a few times, too. But, the generic invocations? I just ignore them, along with the rest of the people in the audience. They mean nothing to me, and typically mean nothing in relation to the issues to be discussed. I'd rather they didn't happen, but have more important issues to raise, really. As long as they don't coerce anything or restrict anyone from expression of their opinion, I just ignore them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I think they reinforce, in a subtle way, the notion

that we are a 'Christian nation', and lead to a more widespread acceptance of that notion than would otherwise exist, just as does 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance, or 'in god we trust' on our money. They are all cultural shaping forces that help give outsize power to the theocrats who push their way into government offices and turn around and help other theocrats gain power.

Fighting against such things is a step towards keeping people like 'The Family' out of power over the rest of us.

[FarCenter]

4. It's probably too bad that we don't have a state Christian religion

European countries that have state Christian religions, e.g. Denmark, have very low levels of religious involvement. In most countries, the development of philosophy and Christian theology from the Enlightenment on has resulted in the enervation of the state religion. It is now something that people can identify with culturally and nominally participate in, without actually having to believe in a god or some detailed dogma. Thus, it inoculates most of the population against religious fever and fundamentalism, even though evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews and Muslim immigrants perpetuate the pathology at a low level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

According to the SKYE most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2010, 28% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", 47% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Another poll, carried out in 2008, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world. While a vast majority of Danes are technically agnostic or atheist, few choose to identify as such. It is speculated that this is because religion is such a non-issue, that not believing in it, does not require a specific label.

[progressoid]

8. The Danish model wouldn't work in the US.

We are vastly different culturally, politically and religiously. We aren't the laid back Danes

If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover contraception under our current constitution, imagine what they would do if you gave them a state religion. Fundies would jump at the chance to turn a state religion into an oppressive theocracy.

[FarCenter]

12. It would be difficult to introduce and it would take decades to evolve

But had the Anglican church been the state religion of the US under the Constitution, there is no reason to believe that it would be more fundamentalist than is the Church of England.

Official figures from 2005 show there are 25 million baptised Anglicans in England and Wales. Due to its status as the established church, in general, anyone may be married, have their children baptised or their funeral in their local parish church, regardless of whether they are baptised or regular churchgoers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

It is the lack of an established religion and the competition between sects, that has made the US a hotbed of religious activity. The US is to Christianity as Iran or Saudi Arabia are to Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

[Nye Bevan]

23. The UK has an official, established state religion. (Church of England).

And two out of the three main political party leaders are atheists, and nobody cares.

[progressoid]

9. +1

[Arugula Latte]

21. Right. It is a way to reinforce that non-Christians and atheists are "the other"

and not true members of the group, and, by extension, the country.

[Scuba]

67. Bingo!

[el_bryanto]

2. That sounds about right

I do get concerned though if they are exclusionary; if basically only the Christians get represented. And to head off those issues it might well be best to discontinue the practice.

But the ideal in my mind would be to take the beliefs in the community and allow each one it's moment to pray or present.

Bryant

[rurallib]

3. I am near your age, been a doubter for a long time

atheist much more recently.
I haven't noticed nearly the amount of prayers or invocations at public meetings that you have. I suspect after that ridiculous ruling there will be more, pushed by the Pharisee right.

Like you, I do not participate, but do not protest either. Maybe we should be louder about it. I would love to see re-enactments of that Snickers commercial that has about 900 different religions give a pre-game prayer.

My thought has always been that those who are praying are one of two types:
1) I think most go through the show just going along to get along. Plus they will have their ass covered if they die right there.

2) The true believers. They really believe the some GOD, some big guy in the sky, is going to push them to do what is "right." Fortunately for them GOD always thinks the same way they do.

I think Borowitz really nailed it when he said that the "S.C. reverses the reason the nation was founded" or something close to that.

As for me, I really wish any public prayers in any public settings, especially if they are in any way governmental, be stopped. If someone really wants to pray they can pray silently for the whole meeting or 24 hours a day for that matter.

[warrior1]

5. Praying to me is like magical thinking.

I guess people find it helpful, but it's just forced group think. The person giving the prayer believes this prayer contains some sort of power or control over others in attendance. They want to touch someone in some profound deep way, but it's just an illusion. From what I remember from Sunday School, Mathew 6.6

The Lord's Prayer
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words...


But, hell what do I know, I'm just an atheist.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, for me it simply is magical thinking.

I can't see it any other way. But, it seems as though a lot of people subscribe to such magical thinking, bless their hearts...

[phantom power]

6. I like to read your posts

because they're informed by decades of on-the-ground political experience.

[Victor_c3]

7. I've just about always been a doubter in life

I'm 34 and I would have considered myself agnostic probably the first half of my life and atheist the second. I've been around a lot of meetings and occasions where they do a prayer and I always figured it was done more out of tradition than actually providing any meaning to anyone. We as a society have always done a group prayer before these functions and we probably will into the foreseeable future. I just go along with it/ignore it.




This isn't at all related to the original topic, but I've had conversations about god and where we come from and different opinions people have about it with my 5 year old daughter. In an effort to present her a fair and balanced perspective on it so that she can make her own decision, I mentioned that nobody knows 100% for sure where we came from and there are a lot of things scientists still can't explain about the origins of the universe. I talk a LOT of science with my daughters (I'm a chemist), and after only letting me say about 5 words about god she was quick to say "That doesn't make sense!". I think she'll turn out alright. She'll be an atheist like her dad.

[Tikki]

10. I just want the prayer listed on the agenda, open with the prayer and the doors to the meeting

to remain open to the public until after the prayer is finished and that seats remain for those entering after the prayer.

I, also, want any prayers during or at the end of the meeting listed on the agenda and no prayers during open comment.

I don't want these meetings turning into prayer-a-thons.

This really isn't asking for too much.

Tikki

[dionysus]

24. that's a good compromise, let tey pray to clud gods whilre i check my texts and calls outside the

door...

[whatchamacallit]

11. Sorry, the separation of church and state must be protected and maintained

When you consider that the collective forces pushing for public prayer believe they are at war with secularism, it's clear they will continue to chip away at the wall until it's breached. A key to their success is the no-harm-no-foul acquiescence of people like you. Your wisdom is not.

[MineralMan]

60. The long-lived presence of Congressional Chaplains

militates against change in this. Truly, it does. Think about it.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Right...

one of those indispensable american traditions like segregation and denying women's suffrage...

[LibertyLover]

13. As a pagan and a member of a minority religion

public prayers bother me. There is no need for them. They, in the vast majority of the cases, are Christian and reinforce the idea that to be a "good" American you have to be Christian. And what the hell is a "ceremonial" prayer or invocation? There is no such thing. A prayer is a prayer. And they don't belong in public governmental activities in a nation that has enshrined in the 1st Amendment that there is no state religion nor can one be legislated.

[FarCenter]

14. They probably bother adherents of minority religions more than atheists

Prayers may conflict with other religion's terms and concepts.

To atheists, the prayer may have correct syntax, but the semantics are empty.

[TroglodyteScholar]

25. You nailed it

This practice implies quite loudly that the rest of us (non-Christians) lack something that is required to be American.

I'm not part of the team. The only difference between this and women's issues or racial issues is that nobody talks about this issue. Atheists are invisible, and this practice simply aims to keep us that way.

It's easy to see as harmless if you're willing to ignore the true implications of what is being done.

[Exposethefrauds]

15. No one should be forced to sit though anyone's babbling

To the mythological being of their choice at a government meeting or school

Now the court has said that the majority can trample on the rights of the minority now, something our founding fathers were very concerned about, the Tyranny of the Majority.


What will happen in a place that has a large number of Muslims and prayers to Allah come from the City Council Chambers, I will tell you white Christian America will lose its f-ing mind and everyone one with half a brain knows it.

The rise of militant and violent Christians in America over the last 30 years is the single best reason to exercise ones 2nd amendment rights. Militant Christians want a religious war and they will not think twice about coming after those who do not think like they do.

One can roll their eyes all they want but we are dealing with irrational people who believe in a myth and think they talk to and hear from invisible beings who even command them to kill in their name.

I do not trust any of them, period.

[Kali]

16. I freaking hate them. And the Pledge of Allegiance.

and I live in an area where when I look around the crowd, they are all seriously into it. I stand out of respect but do not bow my head or recite anything. But I really resent being pressured to conform to such bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. As an Atheist, I'm not the only non-theist in the room.

I give the same example that I give on the 'ten commandments' monument in a courtroom foyer. If a person who is not of the Abrahamic tradition comes to that courtroom, might that monument give them pause to wonder, are they truly going to get a fair shake in this environment?


I feel we MUST stop doing this. If people want to pray, fine. Do it on your own time, in your own way.
The government is a sandbox within which we ALL get equal access. Or should, in principle.

This issue is one item barring the way to true equal access to good governance.

So I will continue to fight.

[byronius]

18. Geography, I think, is part of the issue here.

There are places in the US where 'generic invocations' push the envelope, and are used to serve one local sect in their quest to dominate others. It might seem harmless, but the subconscious effect is larger than it might appear, especially in places where the beliefs do not respect civil boundaries. For instance, in certain schools in the south, the Bible is taught as science, which is not only dangerous but damaging to the nation. One of those kids might have been the inventor of the warp-drive, but because of these blurred lines, is not.

It's technically incorrect, and philosophically indefensible in a secular society. Religion should be a private matter.

As Randi Rhodes says, mixing church and state damages both institutions.

That being said, thanks for your considered opinion. I always love your posts.

[Hekate]

19. There you go again, invoking common sense and good manners

Last paragraph does it for me, too.

[Throd]

20. I'm an atheist and agree with your take on this.

Apparently, God ignores their appeals to good decision making too.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. Life is full of annoyances, that's all it is to me.

It actually barely makes a blip on my radar anyway.

[Peacetrain]

26. As a devout Christian.. committed to my faith and not afraid to be public about it

A few moments of silent reflection is all that is needed.. we each commune in our own way..in hopes that things will work and be better.

I do not see the need for led prayer by anyone in the public venue.

But I surely appreciate have a moment to reflect through my faith.

And I would guess we all would like those moments to reflect on how best to proceed, whether it is a religious perspective, a philosophical or political or cultural perspective.

But those perspectives are our own.. and if I am in church.. I am with a group who all reflect through prayer as I do. And we pray as a group.

But in a public venue.. We needs to consider the needs of all ..

Just saying

[stopbush]

30. I serve on the Board of a 501(c)3 that raises money for programs at my daughter's high school.

We don't see the need to start our meetings with a fucking prayer or a fucking moment of silence, for that matter. We call the meeting to order and get to work, maybe because that meeting has been preceded by numerous e-mails that prep us in advance for the topics/issues to be handled. Maybe because everyone's time is precious, we're all ADULTS (even the religious among us), and any moment wasted on such crap is just that, wasted.

A moment of silence is just horse shit covering for people having their little Christian moment in public. A moment of silence to me is wasted time, and it's time being wasted so the Christians can have a conversation with themselves and think they're communicating with some fucking deity that doesn't exist.

If we can do fine as a non-government entity without wasting time with a moment of silence, I don't see why the government needs it. The ONLY reason for it is to allow Christianity to have a privileged seat at the government table. The only reason.

[Peacetrain]

34. Just out of curiousity..

At your meeting, what if you saw someone taking a moment of silence.. would there be a consequence to them doing that?

[Fumesucker]

72. Hopefully everyone but one person at a time is enjoying a "moment of silence" in their meetings

Otherwise it would be like the Sabbath Gasbag shows on the idiot box.

[stopbush]

82. I doubt there would be any consequence, unless the person tried to impose/extend

said moment to everyone in the chamber.

My experience with Board meetings is that most people sitting in the meeting with their eyes closed have fallen asleep.

What's germane is that the idea of having a moment of silence to start one of our meetings has never arisen.

[Peacetrain]

85. While we may view religion from different perspectives.. I agree with you whole

heartedly, that it has not place in the public arena.. I am comfortable with moments of silence and reflection respecting everyones point of view.. that is because I am a religious person, and I am sure that colors my world view.

[NCTraveler]

32. Agree with all of what you said. nt.

[think]

84. -

[djean111]

27. I think the ruling to say prayers are okay is kind of a Citizens United.

Already the ruling is being used to say it is okay to discriminate and to be against gay marriage.
I am afraid it is the camel's nose under the tent.
And at this point, a state religion would be so divisive that I believe there would be bad consequences.
It is not the prayer that is important, it is the ruling that Christians can impose their stuff on everybody else, officially.

[Enthusiast]

73. I agree.

It is the camel's nose under the tent.

Examining the long history of religion indicates to me that if we give them an inch, they will take a mile. Religious extremists would eventually impose tithes on everyone including non-believers. They might even decide to eliminate the non-believers.

[m-lekktor]

28. all i can say is Darwin help us

if the "wrong" christians get in power (again) and all many of us could do is shrug and roll our eyes and not be bothered as far right supreme court justices erode our constitution. as a gay man i have been at the receiving end of the wrong, " not real christians" my whole life and i cringe at the thought of giving them any more power no matter how innocuous appearing , i don't care how many so called atheists claim they don't mind.

[MineralMan]

29. Sorry. I had to be away from DU for a couple of hours.

Work sometimes gets in the way. So, I apologize for not responding to the many thoughtful replies.

It should not be assumed that I do not object when prayers are offensive, which sometimes happens. I do object to any prayers that call upon officials to act in ways that go against laws and normal procedures. If, for example, someone giving an invocation goes beyond simple advocacy of good sense and the common ethics of society, I will speak about that immediately, and have done so. If a prayer advocates discrimination on any grounds, you can count on my to chime right in and declare my opposition of such an abuse of the function of an invocation. I have done that in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

As an example, I attended a Memorial Day event, where the person giving an invocation launched off in a diatribe against LGBT rights and Liberal concepts. I stood and interrupted the speaker, demanding that he stop such speech, in no uncertain terms, explaining exactly why his nonsense was inappropriate and offensive. When I finished, I got applause from other veterans and attendees, along with jeers from some others. The "pastor" who had been giving the invocation stomped off in anger, and that was the end of that.

But, if all that is being offered as an invocation is a series of the usual platitudes, I don't really care, and just deal with it.

[Exposethefrauds]

33. Just deal with it. Kinda of shitty advice

Sure you have the courage to stand up and call people out but not every one has your courage.

Who is going to stand up and speak up for those to afraid to speak up, you? Rights should not only apply to those who will speak up when that are being violated.

[MineralMan]

35. If I'm there, yes, I'll speak up.

But that's not the point, really. Most of the time, such invocations are nothing but platitudes and are meaningless. They're completely unnecessary, and I wish they did not happen in the first place.

However, they are a commonplace thing, and not just at government meetings. I've often spoken at meetings of organizations like Rotary or Kiwanis, and there's always an invocation at those meetings. I'm not there for that, and was invited to speak on some subject about which I have some expertise. That the organization thinks a prayer is of importance is not my concern, and I see no benefit in objecting to such things.

In convening some governmental function, I agree that invocations are more objectionable, but I can't be concerned unless the content of the invocation somehow interferes with the rights of people who are there. If it does, then I can be counted on to object. If not, I don't object. I choose my battles.

Your choices of battles might differ from mine.

[MineralMan]

38. To add: People whose rights are being violated should always

speak up. Otherwise, how will people know? Fear is defeated by action, not silence.

[Exposethefrauds]

41. I think many on DU including myself would speak up

But many people for whatever reason are afraid to speak up, lately death threats from conservatives and Christians is very common response to people who speak up against prayer, why should they have to live in fear?

Me I so not give a crap who does or does not like me but many if not most people do care about what others think of them.

Your choice to go to a private club like the rotary and listen to prayers or not is purely voluntary, one does not need the rotary to get by in life. However one should not be compelled to listen to prayers at a government meeting, the meeting needs to be open and inviting to all not just the religious. Praying at a public event creates a hostile environment for non believers.

[MineralMan]

44. I care a great deal what people think of me.

That's why I speak up when people's rights are being violated. If I did not, people would think that I did not care, and that wouldn't be true. People need to speak up. Part of the problem we're having is due to people not speaking up and letting people who are wrong have the stage. Knowing when to speak and when to hold one's tongue is not an easy distinction, though. Sometimes, speaking up is best done at another time and to other people.

[whatchamacallit]

42. It's the same "level headed" advice we're getting on privacy and due process

Apparently they're not that big a deal anymore either.

[Exposethefrauds]

45. Level Headed Advice - FTS!

It gets us no where

[NCTraveler]

31. Like you, I have been to many functions that are kicked off by prayer.

I do consider myself agnostic and not atheist. Each time a prayer is offered up before a function, I use that time to bow my head and to give thanks for all of the good things I have in my life and I tell myself I need to be better in order to share my good fortune with others. Their prayers themselves are somewhat insignificant to me, yet I know that to some of faith, their thought are very similar to mine. Of course you are correct that they rarely have anything to do with the function that follows.

[MineralMan]

36. I never bow my head or shut my eyes. It's far more interesting

to look around and see what others present are doing. Boredom seems to be the most common reaction I see. I share it.

[NCTraveler]

40. I have enough going on that boredom is never a problem for me.

I always have things going on and in these situation never find it boring to be thankful. Maybe I am just easily amused. Correction, I know I am easily amused.

[Madam Mossfern]

68. Ha - I do the same thing

and it's kind of funny to see just how many people are doing the same thing as I. I've been very active in my community, served as an elected official. I was always told that invocations were 'expected'. It was interesting for me especially because I'm Jewish.

I expressed my wishes that if indeed this was 'expected', that the person making the arrangements be sure that whatever offering there was would be non-denominational. I was quite disturbed when one pastor invoked Jesus Christ Our Lord.

When I was sworn into office, I made sure that it was apparent that I did not use the stand-by King James bible. I was tempted to use a copy of Alice in Wonderland. Well, as a matter of fact I did keep a copy of that with me at official meetings.

I am proud to say that I took all mention of God out of the civil marriage ceremony and crafted a gender neutral one for civil unions. (Gay marriage wasn't legal then)

[Kaleva]

37. A good read. Rec'd.

[MineralMan]

39. Thanks. Not everyone agrees, apparently.

[Kaleva]

43. Not everyone agreeing adds to the interesting disucssion.

Again, good OP and discussion of what you wrote!

[MineralMan]

52. That's certainly true. It's good to see a discussion

on this subject. For the most part, it has been a good one, too, full of thoughtful replies and interesting things to consider.

[justiceischeap]

46. My big issue with this is, lately, this type of "prayer"

is hate speech wrapped up in a nice "prayer" bow--although it's mostly dependent on where you are geographically.

At least when they had the ceremony after the Gabby Giffords shooting they tried to be inclusive with local beliefs. However, I'd prefer not to have to sit through that--'cause 9 times out of 10 I'm not going to agree with their take on scripture anyway.

I guess if it's "mandatory" to have these sorts of prayers, they should at least invite non-denominational ministers/pastors to give them. It's the least they can do. Even if I were a practicing Christian instead of an atheist, I shouldn't be forced to listen to rhetoric I don't agree with--there's a reason I don't watch Faux Newzzzz nor do I go to church.

And I agree with the other poster that stated that allowing or encouraging this sort of thing only reinforces the delusion that somehow Christianity is the only "correct" religion if you're an American. It reminds me of the atmosphere after 9/11... if you didn't support the war, you were un-American. Well, many believe that if you don't believe in God/Christ that you're just as un-American, maybe even worse. It's gotten so bad that whether we want to admit it or not, there is a religious test that our candidates have to take--you see it in every election.

[MineralMan]

51. Non-denominational ministers/pastors are sort of

a contradiction in terms. There are few such. While it's possible to create an innocuous prayer of invocation, such prayers are even more tedious and meaningless than other types. After convincing one county board of supervisors that their invocations needed more diversity if they were going to continue them, I got asked to deliver a non-religious invocation at one of their meetings. So, I did. I invoked the spirit of reason and equality under the law, and exhorted that body to consider all opinions and decide matters according to the laws of the State of California and the Constitution of the United States. How was my invocation received? Almost exactly like all the rest of them - with ennui and inattention. My invocation was as ignored as the rest by that body, which went right ahead and decided matters on whatever basis they saw fit, generally in the favor of the moneyed class.

I found it to be an amusing exercise. Coming up with an atheist's invocation was an interesting thing to do, but it was no more effective than any other such opening statement.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. This is some hilarious shit.

Selective to the point of utter vapidity.

[MineralMan]

50. Thank you for your thoughtful and thoroughly explained

reply. I'll give it all due consideration.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. I have mixed feelings about this. Like the OP, I'm inclined to roll my eyes

and wish they wouldn't have an invocation at all, but as one who doesn't really do religion I pretty much ignore it. I generally consider the whole thing to be a pro forma display where the perpetrators feel obligated to advertise their piety to the assembly, as if by doing so they are reassuring them that they will do what Jesus would have done when deciding whether to install a stoplight at the corner of 3rd Avenue and Elm Street. If I were a devout Jew or Muslim, however, I probably would be much more bothered. So,if a rabbi or an imam showed up at one of these small-town council meetings and asked to give the invocation, what would happen? Could they say, "No, this town is 99% Christian so we are going to allow only Christian prayers"? Notwithstanding the Supremes' latest (dumb) decision, this is the Constitutional sticky wicket.

Of course, presumably a nonbeliever also has the right not to be subjected involuntarily to any religion. So it seems to me that the only way to keep everybody happy is to not do invocations at all, which is what the separation of church and state in a secular government should be all about. Why don't the town council's prayer-doers just get together informally on their own five minutes before the meeting to ask Jesus to tell them whether they should install a stoplight, and then get on with the real meeting? Well, because they want to advertise their piety, that's why. Because these days politicians are required to be Godly, Christian souls, and they are required to tell everybody about it. Phooey on your secular government, Thomas Jefferson.

[MineralMan]

49. One of the difficulties in ending this practice is that

the habit of having people like chaplains and invocative prayers at governmental sessions of many kinds has a very long history. It seems like every legislative body has some sort of "chaplain," and succumbs to prayers before conducting business. As long as such chaplaincies exist and the federal and state level, it's going to be very difficult to rid ourselves of local government pandering to the religious community in similar ways.

Finally, in California, the annual graduation ritual of some sort of semi-religious baccalaureate ceremony has finally been done away with. I don't know about other places. Most schools are justifiably reticent to have things like Christmas pageants and the like, as well, and that's a good thing. But religion is pervasive in our society, and attempts to inject it are numerous.

Until the House of Representatives and Senate rid themselves of Chaplains by law, I don't see this practice ending at the local level. It's not a battle that is going to be won, frankly, and the SCOTUS decision is evidence of that. We can insist on proportionate representation of differing beliefs, of course, and will usually get that. But getting rid of all such nonsense doesn't seem to me to be in the cards at this point, so my efforts target other issues, unless blatant discrimination is part of such invocations and benedictions. Where that occurs, we should protest strongly and effectively.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. And this was part of the reason for the Supremes' decision.

We've always done it that way. It's tradition. And I suppose you're right - getting rid of this "tradition" will be like getting rid of a case of herpes, especially now that it's been effectively become The Law Of The Land. (Hear that whirring sound? It's ol' Tom Jefferson spinning in his grave.)

I do hope some imam shows up at a town meeting in Bunghole, OK and asks to do the invocation.

[MineralMan]

56. Indeed. It's difficult to argue against any sort of public

chaplaincy when our Congress has its own official chaplains. An excellent case can be made for diversity in these situations, but it's almost impossible to argue that no such prayers can be given, as long as there are chaplains and prayers in our national legislative bodies.

It's not a case I'd like to argue before the SCOTUS.

[jeff47]

66. That's an incredibly stupid argument.

the habit of having people like chaplains and invocative prayers at governmental sessions of many kinds has a very long history.

This is an incredibly stupid argument.

Slavery had a very long history.
Segregation had a very long history.
Women not voting had a very long history.
Abuse of homosexuals has a very long history.

The fact that forced religion has a very long history does not mean we should shut up and ignore it.

The point is not "Oh, well, Congress has chaplains". The question is "Why the fuck does Congress have chaplains, and when will we be eliminating them?".

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. Unfortunately, it was also the Supreme Court's (stupid) argument

which means we're pretty much stuck with it for now. Of course we shouldn't shut up and ignore it, but the reality is that there are all these government chaplains and prayer meetings of one sort or another, and I wish I knew how to make them go away - and that will be even harder now that the Supremes have put their stamp of approval on official prayers. At least we can hope that as the population gradually becomes less religious (which it is, whether the fundies like it or not), the practice will die out.

[MineralMan]

70. I did not say it was a GOOD argument.

I said it was THE argument, which it is.

[Warpy]

54. Same here, most of the time

I look around these days and see people tapping furiously on cell phones, undoubtedly texting some utterly important message about forgotten dry cleaning while the godly gasbag goes on and on. I'm usually knitting or spinning, completely old school.

I view it as just more advertising for something I don't want. I've gotten very used to ignoring the barrage of words and pictures I'm surrounded by every day, those urgent pleas from manufacturers to try to get me to drop everything and buy some piece of crap I don't need or want.

It's not as annoying as watching my food get cold during a long winded grace.

I honestly think people support these invocations because they give them time to tap furiously on their cell phones about forgotten dry cleaning.

[MineralMan]

55. Good observation.

I haven't been to a church service, other than a funeral, for quite some time. I wonder if people are texting during those, as well. These days, I'm afraid that I'm attending far more funerals than I'd rather. Such is the penalty of growing older. With both of my parents reaching 90 years of age this year and my wife's mother having her 86th birthday soon, I fear that I may have to attend others before I would wish to.

I started making a daily phone call to my parents when they turned 89. Since I'm two-thirds of the way across the country from them, I feel a need to talk with them frequently. We're all enjoying it and talking about memories a lot.

[backscatter712]

57. It's time to demand that Satanism get equal time!

The Satanists in Oklahoma are making huge strides as they progress with their statue of Baphomet.

[MineralMan]

58. And why not. Wherever there is diversity of religious belief,

an excellent legal case can be made for proportionate representation in this type of public prayer before governmental proceedings. That seems clear to me. However, unless there is an actual group of people who profess some religious set of beliefs, it will be tough case to make. Satanists don't have a lot of representation in most of the nation. So, that will be a difficult challenge.

I remember a dispute in my little home town in California. It was between Roman Catholic and Protestant representation in things like invocations for public governmental proceedings. As it happened, the town was pretty much equally divided, but the Protestants represented the Anglo community, primarily, while the Roman Catholics were primarily the Hispanic residents. The battle went on for years, until it was finally settled in court. Today, things are pretty evenly divided up between the two general divisions of Christianity when it comes to such prayers.

Oddly enough, the city council is also now split between Anglo and Hispanic members, as well. Quite a change from my childhood years there, to be sure.

[mike_c]

61. I find them deeply offensive and anti-intellectual....

They say "Let's start our important business here today by rattling bones and casting entrails, to recognize that superstition and magical thinking are necessary for achieving our purpose."

Luckily, in my profession the number of times I have to confront superstition at the beginning of meetings is essentially nil except when attending outside meetings, like municipal events. Otherwise, the annual commencement ceremony is pretty much the only thing I attend that begins with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I ignore it, but with a grimace, like having a bad taste in my mouth.

[MineralMan]

62. I've submitted myself to so many of those bone-rattlings that

my only reaction most of the time is a big shrug. Occasionally, I'll actually listen to one, which reinforces my understanding that it's all nonsense and magical thinking.

But, since our Congress has its own chaplains, I'm not optimistic about the end of such invocations and benedictions. I don't think it's in the cards (another magical-thinking reference).

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. The Cambridge college solution to prayers before non-religious gatherings: loud coughing

Having an established church, and customs (often ridiculous) established over centuries, University of Cambridge colleges have silly rituals, such as a Latin grace before a (drunken) Boat Club dinner. And so another tradition developed - of large numbers of people coughing loudly while the prayer was recited, effectively drowning it out. As you say, these invocations mean nothing, and so you're not depriving anyone of anything by covering them up.

[MineralMan]

64. Very creative..

[Jamaal510]

71. As long as nobody is getting hurt,

and the participants aren't imposing their beliefs onto others, I don't see a reason at all to ban public prayer. I would never pray in public, but I don't care if other people pray as long as they aren't causing trouble. It doesn't matter to me. Live and let live.

[djean111]

74. It is not just a matter of live and let live.

This ruling has already been used as an argument to ban same sex marriage or something like that.
Saying prayer is free speech is like saying money is free speech.
It is the ramifications that are awful, not having to sit through some prayer.
And yeah, we are free to leave or whatever - and that starts, IMO, giving a way to identify "non-Christians", or "non-believers".
This ruling smashed the separation of church and state, and old as I am, I would have to find another country to live in if this country is declared "Christian" and ruled as such. The religious who are intent on such a thing have a lot more in mind than some prayers before meetings.

The participants are longing to impose their beliefs onto others.

[struggle4progress]

75. I think the plaintiffs were correct and that the Court of Appeals decision should have been upheld

but as Mr Dooley said, no matther whether th'constitution follows th'flag or not, th'supreme coort follows th'iliction returns -- and it does so for many years after whatever election put particular judges on the bench

This 5-4 opinion of the Court is cobbled together in a peculiar way, with different justices holding different views. The views of Thomas and Scalia are particularly noxious, resisting incorporation of the Establishment Clause against the states (via the Fourteenth Amendment) on originalist grounds involving laws at the state level in 1789, and indicating some uncertainty about whether the Establishment Clause actually forbids the establishment of a state church. Thomas and Scalia, it seems, would be comfortable if Utah made Mormonism its state religion or if Texas officially adopted the Southern Baptist faith. Equally pernicious IMO is their stance that to the extent coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that counts -- not the "subtle coercive pressures" allegedly felt by respondents in this case, which simply means Thomas and Scalia are not in any fashion concerned by the possibility of a state government agency exerting subtle coercive pressure on people to conform religiously, so long as there is no provable legal coercion. The 1984 and 1988 elections continue to echo

As a general rule, I will agree with you that one ought to pick one's battles, and that a certain indifference to noisy blowhards can sometimes reduce their idiotic posturing, by depriving them of the attention that loud controversy brings, but I did not read GREECE v GALLOWAY with joy

[MineralMan]

78. I agree, and for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, that was not the decision. Yet another reason to make sure that Democrats regain control of Congress and that we elect a Democrat as President in 2016. When it comes to the SCOTUS, elections have very long legs. We're going to need to enact a couple of Constitutional Amendments down the road, and we won't be able to do that without some serious majorities in Congress.

The SCOTUS has extraordinary powers in interpreting the Constitution, which makes our Presidents and Congress important beyond their terms of office.

[stone space]

76. A public recitation of the Lord's Prayer

[think]

77. Public prayer and flag lapel pins....

[MineralMan]

79. That's true.

Of course.

[think]

80. Ya

I do believe in Christ and Dr Seuss.

Yet I am judgmental & a hypocrite.




And now I'm proselytizing....

[think]

83. Kinda of sorry about the tangential rant

I have a bad habit with that.

In regards to the thread topic I respect your actions, wisdom, and candor on this subject.

Your solution is very practical and makes sense.

[rhett o rick]

81. Thanks Supremes - Down the Slippery Slope To a National Religion

The Supreme Court rules that government meetings can have an opening prayer. How can that not violate the Constitutional right of separation of Church and State?

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions. "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

Let’s get this straight; Justice Kennedy says that the prayers are only “ceremonial”? I wonder what God thinks about that. And they should be allowed because they are “traditional”? Wasn’t that an argument to support slavery? Oops, shouldn't say that too loudly, next the Court might strike down the 13th Amendment.

I counter the “ceremonial” and “tradition” argument with the slippery slope argument. Next thing you know the theists will be including God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, if you allow non-proselytizing prayers, you will start to get more proselytizing prayers.

As I see it, praying out loud with head bowed and maybe hands together is proselytizing. In my opinion the words, "and thank Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior" or something similar, is Christian proselytizing and has no business at government meetings. It is certainly aimed at impressing someone other than God. I haven’t seen any evidence that God cares how you pray so why does it have to be demonstrative? If you want your particular god to bless the meeting, discuss it with him or her in the parking lot before you go into the meeting.

The bad thing about this is that it pressures others to conform to the will of the majority. Who wants to be the only one in the room that isn’t praying? And what about other religions? Do they get to say their own prayers?

The Constitution is crystal clear in it’s meaning of, “ no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Having Christian prayers at the beginning of a government meeting qualifies as a test. You might as well ask public officials to raise their hand if they are not a Christian.

The religious Right-Wing has won another battle for "one nation under Christ".

[Starboard Tack]

87. Good post. I feel exactly the same way.