We have the freedom to pray in God’s name : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

The First Amendment says basically this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This wording was carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers, mostly by James Madison. It says exactly what they wanted it to say about the state and religion. That’s the extent of what they intended the relationship of state and religion to be: “Make no law.”

The whole idea that “separation of church and state” has anything to do with you mentioning the name of your God when you’re on government property is folly. Saying Jesus in a prayer opening a government meeting is not Congress making a law. And it’s not establishing a religion. Telling someone he can’t say the name of their God anytime he wants to is a violation of the “free expression thereof.”

The First Amendment doesn’t say your freedom ends when you step on to government property or are selected to say a prayer opening a government meeting.

Remember, your very right to religious expression and free speech is given to you by your God, not men. To think you are prohibited from saying the name of your God is nonsense. They can’t take your freedom!

Mark Underwood
Reidsville

nemo0037

February 3, 2012 - 7:58 am EST

We've been over this ground enough already. The courts have examined this question in the past, and it is settled law, according to the US Supreme Court. I'd recommend everyone take the time to look up the actual text of the decisions in this and similar cases. I have done so and find that the writings of the justices in their decisions are usually very clear, concise and nowhere near as arcane as I had expected.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1575764.html

But the more interesting question here, to me, is why do people feel it necessary to pray as part of the opening of a secular government meeting? Do they miss being in church that much? Do they think that God will feel badly and send lightening bolts if he's not "officially" invited to participate? Conversely, when officials meet and decide to do things that hurt the people they are supposed to represent, do they think their opening prayers fool God into thinking they must be godly?

It's all just show. It means nothing and adds nothing to the process of government, other than to support religious feeling in those who need more support than their church apparently gives them. Grow up, people, and stop trying to turn your government into a half-baked church.

itsjustron

February 3, 2012 - 8:25 am EST

We must remeber the Supremes are people too, and only have thier interpretation to guide them.. My interpetation is different, but guess which one of us carries more weight!

I understand the controversy, on one side of the isle, you have people saying this was/ is a primarily christian nation and should be able to pray without being persecuted. On the other side, you have people of different faith, or none at all, who say their opinion and beliefs are being overshadowed. Its much more simple from a legal standpoint, to simply , either pray before public meetings in another room (my suggestion) or not say them outloud at all, and have a minute of quiet time to yourself.

I have stated before, that there are plenty of towns/communities where prayer is still practiced and encouraged in daily routine, such as county meetings, schoolboard meetings, etc.. and where the story of Marry and Joseph is told in school plays, ETc.. The Triad is simply not one of them,

And Nemo, about turning our government into a half baked church?? I think we can all agree that our government is about as far from church as possible?

Hows that working out for us?

I think it would be great if all our leaders followed at least partly, some sort of moral compass. Dont see one of them up there yet doing it. Just two simple ones, Dont Lie or Steal.of course that would mean most of them could never open their mouths agin, or even get out of bed in the morning ..ha.

February 3, 2012 - 8:27 am EST

Ron, I think that we could live in harmony following your ideas regarding opening quiet time for personal reflection or prayer. But such is life... folks will insist on prayers specifically, and those who are Christians will feel an urge to mention Jesus. Hopefully, the defined rules regarding such things will be respected in the future, saving counties the repeated wastes of time and money to re-hash this over and over again. I don't think it's likely, but I'll try to keep my hopes up anyway.

thinkingman

February 3, 2012 - 8:36 am EST

The letter writer makes a common mistake when reading and interpreting the first amendment. As nemo pointed out, you have to consider the entire body of case law developed since the original amendment was passed...in our judicial system, we follow not only the letter of the law, but the precedent established by past cases and judges' interpretations of that law.

In this case, the amendment refers to "Congress" but has been broadened through Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th amendment to include all state and local governments. Similarly, religious acts by individuals can be interpreted as being on behalf of the government and therefore essentially "establishing" religion, depending on the context. In this case, the context is clear - opening a government meeting with references to specific religious beliefs, to the exclusion of other religious beliefs (whether intentional or not).

As ron suggested, this would be so easily resolved by just altering the terms of how they open their meetings. A momen of silent reflection respects all faiths equally, and allows each individual the freedom of their own conscience, as guaranteed by the first amendment.

destinys mother in law

February 3, 2012 - 8:44 am EST

I just wish the politicians would start being nice to one another. How about opening government proceedings with leaders saying something positive about the other side of the aisle? (I am shocked by the "holier than thou" Republicans calling their colleagues "liars," "unAmerican," etc.) Maybe the Constitution should be amended to separate "respectful" from "disrespectful."

February 3, 2012 - 2:41 pm EST

You are blinded by your ownhate of a prticular group.. I rarely see anything come from you thats not slamming republicans or white people.. For the record.. The link below provides you with the kinda talk that comes down to republicans.. Had it been a republican DOING the talk, instead of recieveing it.. Wheres the outrage of this talk? It wont make the mainstream media..Oh, and to stay on subject, im guessing this DJ doesnt find church important either.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/outrage-subdued-after-dj-gop-...

snapandwhistle

February 3, 2012 - 2:18 pm EST

Prayer before a council meeting is just fine until Councilman Muhammed gets up and leads everyone in a prayer to Allah.

news-record.com

OPINION