ACLU Challenges Prayer at Winston-Salem City Council Meetings
Same story I’ve heard countless times, different City Council. Once again the PC police at the ACLU are attacking a city council over their opening prayers being too religious. If the city council insists on opening their meetings with prayer, the ACLU wants them to be secularized, generic, and directed towards a more multi-cultural type deity, just in case this Jesus guy happens to offend someone. You know, we must be tolerant and sensitive to the views of those that might be intolerant and insensitive to our own views, especially if its Christianity. Nevermind the part of the Constitution that guarantees individuals the right to express their religion or that no one has complained, the ACLU sees this as a threat and a step towards theocracy.
The American Civil Liberties Union is complaining that prayer aimed at any specific religion should not be allowed during government meetings.
The organization wrote a two page letter citing constitutional law and several cases that uphold the idea that government should not support or advocate any particular religion.The ACLU says an opening prayer referencing a specific god can be interpreted as city council favoring some groups more than others.
The Winston-Salem City Council routinely begins its meetings with a prayer that often references Jesus or Christ. The ACLU says the practice must end; however, it’s a practice Christians are defending.
According to the ACLU, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states prayer at government meetings is OK, but it cannot use the name of recognized deities, it must be non-sectarian and it must be non-offensive to all.
Funny that they claim the Establishment Clause clearly mentions prayer at government meetings. I never read that part. I will have to contact the ACLU and order their extended version of the First Amendment. Somehow in their version of the First Amendment one clause cancels out another clause.
City Attorney Ron Seeber says the ACLU’s interpretation is correct. He challenged the council to agree on either opening meetings with a non-secular prayer or a moment of silence.
Council members are requesting the presence of any Christian person in council chambers December 18 to show support for Christian prayer.
In a statement provided over the phone, Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines said he is getting an informal consensus among council members as to what they want to do. He said he will not take a formal vote.
Email This
Posted by Jay on December 7, 2006 9:20 am
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL:
Comments
9 Responses to “ACLU Challenges Prayer at Winston-Salem City Council Meetings”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
It wasn’t a direct quote. I can’t be sure because the article doesn’t cite any sources, but I’m inclined to believe that the author did a poor job of summarizing the ACLU’s statement.
I thought that was worth highlighting.
Didn’t congressional sessions start with a prayer way back when the founding fathers who wrote the constitution were actually still involved directly with congress?
In that case, it seems very hard to believe there was estabilishment clause intent to not allow governmental meetings to be begun with a prayer.
What would you say if the ACLU stepped in and tried to disallow a town council from opening meetings with prayers dedicated to Allah, Attis, Shiva, or Apollo? And don’t laugh.
“It wasn’t a direct quote. I can’t be sure because the article doesn’t cite any sources, but I’m inclined to believe that the author did a poor job of summarizing the ACLU’s statement.”
Yes, this is my thought also. The ACLU wouldn’t make such a mistake.
Regardless, I’d like to hear from Jay how the ACLU’s actions here can be opposed on the basis of anything other than Jesus deserving special consideration among deities/sons of deities. If you think the U.S. should become a nation of Christ, well, that’s a position, though not a constitutionally defensible one.
I have not heard of the UU idea of religion called secular before. Don’t they realize the secular God is offensive to some? I believe the court is trying to be unrealistic and please everyone. The application of the First Amendment suggested by the ACLU actually violates the First Amendment as it regulates a religious expression.
There is a difference between people who work in government holding a prayer before they work, and thos people declaring whatever religion they have just prayed to as the Official State Religion. Funny how many ACLU types are the first to tell us when we see something objectionable on TV, we should turn it off/change the channel/ ignore it. When someone drives down my suburban street with his radio so loud everyone for a block can hear the words, its fredom of expression and I should just ignore it. When someone prays at a government meeting, its objectionable.
The problem is that it’s not “before they work.” If the prayer is part of the agenda and they typically wait for everyone to arrive before beginning it, they are doing so in their official capacity.
Now if a councilman wants to say a prayer when he first walks in the door or while he’s waiting for the meeting to start, that’s his business. Ya just can’t do it as part of the meeting.
TV is a product that I voluntarily purchased. Government is a fact of life. The establishment clause says that I shouldn’t have to opt out of government meetings because of the religious inclinations of its officeholders.
This is a really bad analogy. Most communities have noise ordinances and they are constitutional.
“The problem is that it’s not “before they work.†If the prayer is part of the agenda and they typically wait for everyone to arrive before beginning it, they are doing so in their official capacity.” Jeff Molby
They are still not an Atheist and should not be forced to behave like one. That is what the free expression of religion clause is about. If the prayer is said for the benefit of the audience then a reasonable way should be made to give all audience members a chance to express their religion. If it is for the council’s benefit then they need only concider the council members religions.
They are not forced to denounce God. Do you pray 24/7? Surely there are other times in the day where you go an hour without praying. Even if your particular religion did require you to pray at a time which coincided with a meeting, the council would be obliged to excuse you while you did.
The council has no business praying on the behalf of its citizens.
The council is a government body and it would clearly violate the establishment clause for it to pray for its own benefit.
The only other possibility is that each councilmember is praying individually on his or her behalf. They are completely free to do so.
However, it would take a very creative mind to construe a prayer at the meeting table after the designated meeting time as “each councilmember praying individually.”
As usual, our disagreement comes down to your belief that the free expression clause applies to government bodies. That is not the case. I say that not to belittle your opinions, but for the benefit of anyone that may be watching this exchange.