Keep religion where it belongs

It is ludicrous that the Sun Sentinel would write this statement: "Without a doubt, the city has no business allowing clergy-led prayer at commission meetings." Why is it ludicrous? Because these same editorial geniuses fail to explain to us why both houses of the US Congress and the US Supreme Court open their sessions with clergy led prayer. Perhaps the editorial writers at the Sun Sentinel don't know that fact. Come to think of it, they are probably so fascinated with Jason Taylor's dancing they no longer pay any attention to real events.

So, here's the question of the day. Why is it an accepted practice to open the sessions of both houses of the US Congress, and the US Supreme Court with clergy led prayer, but the Deerfield Beach city commission has "no business" doing the same thing?

Well nothing wrong with prayer...if it is representative of all the religions of the land. then it would be fair. Instead the religious christian right complain of freedom of religion but really they care about staying in the forefront of all religions and forcing their mantra of "highest god" on all.

Proud to be a Liberal wrote:

Well nothing wrong with prayer...if it is representative of all the religions of the land. then it would be fair. Instead the religious christian right complain of freedom of religion but really they care about staying in the forefront of all religions and forcing their mantra of "highest god" on all.

Prayer can not "representative of all the religions of the land" for several reasons, the first of which is that athiests don't pray, so prayer is not appropriate for them.

Secondly, the notion that there is some universal "God" common to all organized religions is, at best, politically expedient, and at worst, pure intellectual nonsense. If it were true there would no problem opening a session of Congress with "Allah Akbar", right?

Similarly, the God of Christians is not the same God as the God of Jews, nor the same God of Muslims. The God of Jews did not send his only begotten son to earth to save the people. When Christians offer a prayer without following Christian doctrine by invoking Jesus Christ they are merely allowing Jews to hear what they want to hear, not seriously offering a prayer to their God.

Finally, if praying in the name of Jesus Christ, or Mohamed, "offends" some people, thus causing them to yell "separation of church and state", then atheists have the same the "right" to be "offended" by any prayer at all.

Max wrote:

It is ludicrous that the Sun Sentinel would write this statement: "Without a doubt, the city has no business allowing clergy-led prayer at commission meetings." Why is it ludicrous? Because these same editorial geniuses fail to explain to us why both houses of the US Congress and the US Supreme Court open their sessions with clergy led prayer. Perhaps the editorial writers at the Sun Sentinel don't know that fact. Come to think of it, they are probably so fascinated with Jason Taylor's dancing they no longer pay any attention to real events.
So, here's the question of the day. Why is it an accepted practice to open the sessions of both houses of the US Congress, and the US Supreme Court with clergy led prayer, but the Deerfield Beach city commission has "no business" doing the same thing?

You are right on the money Max, it is even more ludicrous that the US Congress and Supreme Court open their sessions with clergy led prayer. Prayer and superstition and have no business in official government activity. Freedom of religion guarantees than anyone in America is free to worship whomever they see fit, but to impose those beliefs via clergy led prayer is ridiculous. Go worship on your own time, there are plenty of real problems that our government needs to address on public time, at all levels.

Ahh, the knuckledraggers of the religious right and their clerical fascist remoras are at it again, trying to shove their superstitious drivel down our collective throats. Poor Deerfield Beach taxpayers, about to take another bath because the corrupt clowns they keep voting back into office don't seem to have studied the constitution very much before they dropped out of elementary school. Well, you can't fault the righties on their targeting; when it comes to economy of effort, it doesn't take much - and certainly not much logic - to buckle the knees of our local politicians.

Here's an idea - if you don't like God, just don't go to heaven - any fool can go to he11.

But, seeing the Sun-Sentinel oppose freedom of religion is completely predictable given their oft-printed, Godless ideologies.

Next thing you know, they'll oppose freedom of speech at government meetings - and we all know where that will lead (well, some of us know - others will be overly mesmerized by the leftist opponents of freedom - as in Moveon.org , the Democratic Party, etc.)

Old Gator wrote:

Ahh, the knuckledraggers of the religious right and their clerical fascist remoras are at it again, trying to shove their superstitious drivel down our collective throats. Poor Deerfield Beach taxpayers, about to take another bath because the corrupt clowns they keep voting back into office don't seem to have studied the constitution very much before they dropped out of elementary school. Well, you can't fault the righties on their targeting; when it comes to economy of effort, it doesn't take much - and certainly not much logic - to buckle the knees of our local politicians.

Old Gator, I trust you are not referring to me with your "knuckle draggers of the religious right" comment. Doesn't fit me at all.

Care to take a stab at answering the question I posed in my first post in the thread? Based on your comments it doesn't appear that anyone in Washington, D.C., for decades now, have "studied the Constitution very much before they dropped out of elementary school" either.

Couldn't the city be sued just for accepting free services from a religious based organization in its legal defense?

Please define your opinion of God to me. Is he really a person or is he the universe?

Lois_Lane wrote:

Couldn't the city be sued just for accepting free services from a religious based organization in its legal defense?

Is being religious based illegal? If so, does that make, for example, B'nai B'rith illegal?

ginger wrote:

Please define your opinion of God to me. Is he really a person or is he the universe?

To whom, Ginger, is this question directed?

I'm sorry - I just directed it to anyone that would share their thoughts.

"It is a matter of government officials and citizens knowing that religion should be practiced in the home and the place of worship, but not a place where budgets and ordinances are being debated."

Only to Christians. Then ban muslims from praying at work, which a guy at my old job did. These cowards love to bash the Christians but god forbid they tell muslims to leave their religion at home. Can you spell 911? Keep killing US culture. liberals hate that.

ginger wrote:

I'm sorry - I just directed it to anyone that would share their thoughts.

The definition of "God" is at the crux of this entire issue. There is very little consensus, across religious, social, and more importantly, political, spectrums as to what the meaning of "God" is.

agnostic conservative wrote:

"It is a matter of government officials and citizens knowing that religion should be practiced in the home and the place of worship, but not a place where budgets and ordinances are being debated."
Only to Christians. Then ban muslims from praying at work, which a guy at my old job did. These cowards love to bash the Christians but god forbid they tell muslims to leave their religion at home. Can you spell 911? Keep killing US culture. liberals hate that.

If you think this entire issue revolves around Islam versus Christianity, you are simply not paying attention.

Prayer is a healthy way to begin any venture, whether it be starting your day or starting a commission meeting. What is not healthy is when prayer becomes exclusively one faith. Therefore prayers need to be representative of all faiths, whether that is done by cycling through clergy from various religions or insisting that the prayers each meeting are generically expressed.
Secularists or atheists have the option not to pray, and it should not bother them if others choose to pray. By insisting that we all behave as secularists, you are violating OUR rights.
So, those of you who disapprove,(which is your right) please keep in mind that we have our rights, too, and that our moment of asking the creator to guide us in what we do is only that, a moment.
You have the option to head to the rest room, step into the lobby or plainly remain seated while the rest of us express our freedom.
Get over it.

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
Prayer can not "representative of all the religions of the land" for several reasons, the first of which is that athiests don't pray, so prayer is not appropriate for them.
Secondly, the notion that there is some universal "God" common to all organized religions is, at best, politically expedient, and at worst, pure intellectual nonsense. If it were true there would no problem opening a session of Congress with "Allah Akbar", right?
Similarly, the God of Christians is not the same God as the God of Jews, nor the same God of Muslims. The God of Jews did not send his only begotten son to earth to save the people. When Christians offer a prayer without following Christian doctrine by invoking Jesus Christ they are merely allowing Jews to hear what they want to hear, not seriously offering a prayer to their God.
Finally, if praying in the name of Jesus Christ, or Mohamed, "offends" some people, thus causing them to yell "separation of church and state", then atheists have the same the "right" to be "offended" by any prayer at all.

Max, you are extremely confused!
In your first paragraph you assert that atheism is a religion, it is not. Therefore, since it is NOT a religion, it does not make sense to group it with any belief system that recognizes a supreme deity. Also, every human being makes wishes. If you deny that you have never wished for something, you are a liar. When you wish, you are praying. You may not be aware that is what you are doing, but essentially what you are doing is asking for some power outside yourself to make something go in the direction you want it to go in. Hence, it is a prayer. So, everyone prays.
Secondly, your assertion that no universal God exists between the faiths is one that shows that you simply do not understand the notion of God. There is no difference between the deity of the Jews and Muslims. Only the Christians combine the notion of a supreme creator and mix that with the notion of a God in the Flesh, combine the images and come up with Jesus as God (and not all Christians believe this). But God, the one of Abraham, is the same deity whether you pray to him in Hebrew, Arabic, English or Swahili.
The term you try to attack,“Allah Akbar”… which, by the way, is Allahu Akbar, simply means “God is Great,” in Arabic, which is a phrase that no believer would have a problem with. AND, additionally, Congress has opened with Islamic prayers in 2003, so your assertion on that item also is absurd.
And, in your final paragraph of nonsense, you assert that there are people who pray in the name of Jesus Christ and Mohammed (please note spelling), and again, you are sorely incorrect.(shaking my head). Whilst Christians may pray in the name of Jesus THE Christ (Christ is a title, not his surname) Muslims do NOT pray in the name of Mohammed, who was simply a messenger, not a God. Muslims pray TO God, or Allah in Arabic, and do not pretend to be praying “IN” any name other than their own, or through any clergy. A Muslim takes responsibility for their own actions and knows that in the end, it is the individual who is accountable for what they have done.
So, Max, please… do some research and investigate the facts before you assert things that simply are so off-base it makes you look like a fool.

agnostic conservative wrote:

"It is a matter of government officials and citizens knowing that religion should be practiced in the home and the place of worship, but not a place where budgets and ordinances are being debated."
Only to Christians. Then ban muslims from praying at work, which a guy at my old job did. These cowards love to bash the Christians but god forbid they tell muslims to leave their religion at home. Can you spell 911? Keep killing US culture. liberals hate that.

Your post is rife with non-sequiturs. What is wrong with Christians praying, at work or anywhere? What is wrong with Muslims praying, at work, or anywhere? What is wrong with someone NOT praying, at work or anywhere... nada. It is precisely the freedom to pray, or not to pray, that our constitution protects.
also, what does 9-11 have to do with any of this?
And i dont remember the editorial attacking one religion over another.
Do they not teach critical thought in school anymore? Or did you skip that class?

SmartGirl wrote:

Prayer is a healthy way to begin any venture, whether it be starting your day or starting a commission meeting. What is not healthy is when prayer becomes exclusively one faith. Therefore prayers need to be representative of all faiths, whether that is done by cycling through clergy from various religions or insisting that the prayers each meeting are generically expressed.
Secularists or atheists have the option not to pray, and it should not bother them if others choose to pray. By insisting that we all behave as secularists, you are violating OUR rights.
So, those of you who disapprove,(which is your right) please keep in mind that we have our rights, too, and that our moment of asking the creator to guide us in what we do is only that, a moment.
You have the option to head to the rest room, step into the lobby or plainly remain seated while the rest of us express our freedom.
Get over it.

"You have the option to head to the rest room, step into the lobby or plainly remain seated while the rest of us express our freedom.
Get over it."

And YOU have the option to do the same if you want to practice your magic and leave free-thinkers alone. Don't inconvenience THEM with your fairy-tales. YOU should have to leave the room, like if you have to belch or fart.

Prayer is not religion. An invocation is not religion. Creed, code and cult combine to form the marks of every distinct religion incluing atheism. Your ranting intollerance speaks volumes of your understanding of the First Ammendment. Are you aware that the US Congress opens every year with a prayer - do they not disduss budgets and ordinances even laws there?