You Can’t Pray That Here!

2 Shares
164900587

Another Federal court has taken a whack at another 200-year-old tradition in this country. This time, it’s opening public meetings with a prayer. An appeals court has ruled that the practice somehow violates the U.S. Constitution.

Now the issue is in front of the Supreme Court. Let’s pray that a majority of the justices get it right. Here is what is going on.

Like many communities in America, the town of Greece, N.Y., opens its monthly board meetings with a prayer. Although a variety of local religious leaders have delivered the prayers, most of them were given by Christians. This shouldn’t be surprising, since most of the religious institutions in this Rochester suburb — as in most of the country — are Christian.

But this was too much for two women in the town. Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens protested that the prayers constituted a government endorsement of religion. They sued the town to have them stopped.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that such “legislative prayer” is perfectly OK, as long as the prayer does not promote (or disparage) a particular religion. But the plaintiffs found a court to support them. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Town of Greece v. Galloway that the practice was “too sectarian” and had to be stopped. The town appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which held a hearing on the case last week.

Hopefully, a majority of justices there will agree with earlier Supreme Court decisions, such as Marsh v. Chambers in 1983, which ruled that such legislative prayers weren’t an “establishment of religion,” but rather a “tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

By the way, in that 1983 decision, the Court wrote that the very same group of lawmakers who drafted the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights also “adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer.”

That is a tradition that every Congress has followed since then. To this day, every session of Congress begins with a prayer. The Supreme Court begins its sessions with the appeal, “God save the United States of America and this honorable Court.” Our coins carry the motto “In God We Trust.” And even the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “under God.”

As I said, acknowledging our dependence on God and asking His blessings upon us is a tradition that goes back to the very formation of this country.

While our Founding Fathers declared their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” they had a healthy mistrust of government. They recognized the wisdom of Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The best way to prevent this from happening, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, was to bind men down “by the chains of a constitution.”

But even the original Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of the States and the people. So before the Constitution could be ratified, 10 amendments were added, to specify even further what the central government could and could not do.

The 1st Amendment in what became known as the Bill of Rights covered the rights that the Founding Fathers considered most essential: freedom of speech, of the press, to assemble and to petition the government “for a redress of grievances.”

But of all these basic freedoms, the most important was the one they listed first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Note the first five words: “Congress shall make no law.” It says nothing about what a State or a community might or might not do. In fact, the Founding Fathers were so intent on protecting the rights of the people to do pretty much do whatever they wanted that they wrote not one, but two amendments on the subject.

The 9th Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And in case that wasn’t clear enough, the framers of the Constitution repeated the same idea in the 10th Amendment. Could anything be more straightforward than this? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Founders never wanted or expected every state or community to draft the same laws, follow the same rules or practice the same traditions as every other community. They would have been appalled at the idea of some proscribed uniformity.

Unfortunately, if you’re looking for people to understand and support the Constitution, the Federal courts in this country are one of the last places you should look. And if President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) get their way, that situation is about to get a lot worse.

At a recent fundraiser, Obama boasted: “We’re remaking the courts.” And certainly the ultra-liberal appointments he’s made to various Federal courts confirm what he said.

Now, a key battle is brewing over three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has said there is no need for more additional judges there. “In terms of raw numbers,” he said, “the D.C. Circuit has the lowest number of total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeal.” He claims that members of the court agree with him. One even told him, “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

Grassley has introduced the Court Efficiency Act of 2013, which would eliminate three seats on the court, which he says are totally unnecessary. That’s one way to keep more liberals from being appointed.

However, there is no way Reid will allow Grassley’s proposal to come to a vote. Reid has said the Democrats need to get at least one more member on the D.C. Circuit Court to “switch the majority.”

Why is this court so important? Here’s how Janice Crouse and Mario Diaz, both of whom are associated with Concerned Women for America, explained it in the Washington Times: “His credibility shattered, the only hope the president has of advancing his agenda is through executive action. Because administrative actions are reviewed by the judges on the D.C. Circuit, the president seeks to pack the court with left-wing ideologues who will uphold his agenda.”

So that’s what’s at stake in this battle. On the issue of legislative prayer, there are some reasons to be optimistic that this Supreme Court will overturn the decision of the Appeals Court.

During the hearing, Justice Elena Kagan said, “Part of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multi-religious society in a peaceful and harmonious way.” Then she added, “And every time the Court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better.”

Of course, the same thing could be said about almost every time the Federal government tries to “make things better.”

We’ll let you know how this battle plays out, as well as how the Supreme Court handles this latest assault our right to pray in public whenever our leaders gather. God knows we need His blessings — and protection.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Personal Liberty

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    Justice Elena Kagan said: “[E]very time the Court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better.”

    Courts should not take such cases. WHY two godless liberals should change community’s tradition and manifestation of the faith.

    Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

    “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof.”

    “The CONSTITUTION is not an instrument for the GOVERNMENT to restrain the people, it IS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PEOPLE TO RESTRAIN THE
    GOVERNMENT – lest it come to dominate our (People’s) lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry, A Founding Father, the first and sixth Governor of Virginia

    “WICKEDNESS PROCEEDS FROM THE WICKED.” – (I Samuel 24:13)

    • Valor

      Correct! Sadly, government has come to dominate the people. We live in a Post Constitutional America.

      • Deerinwater

        Well ? it is 2013.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          So what is your point about 2013. Is that point of pride that the Constitution is set aside to have the government people do what they see what is right in their own eyes.

          • Deerinwater

            In what was to prove to be a very hot summer, a combined total of 55 delegated from all states (except Rode Island) convened in Philadelphia on May 25th 1787 to “improve” the article of the confederation that had been drafted to form and bind America as a nation. 11 years after claiming it’s Independence from England.

            From this All Summer meeting came what was to be known as our Constitution. ~ It was hammer out in privacy so the farmers could change their minds as they attempted to create a sound and just document that protected personal liberty with defining the the power and limits of Government.

            So we live in Post times of the creation of the constitutions crafting Nadzieja .

            There have been 10 thousand amendments offered since to change this Document of which only 27 have been accepted.

            The Bill of rights was ratified in 1791 , three years after the Constitution went into effort, guaranteeing basic personal liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of Religion.

            The first nine states to Ratify the Constitution did not include Virginia and New York, two of the most wealthy and influential states in the Union. It took the guarantees offered by the bill of rights to get their John Hancock.

            So ~! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights include in it ~ didn’t just “Happen” ~ it took years and we now live in POST TIMES.

            I like to think of it as a “Living Document” , while some people take exception to my opinion.

        • Valor

          Yes it is. And that means, with the present off course direction of America, there are not many years left for this country as the greatest nation in recorded history.

    • Deerinwater

      Finally! , ~ I can agree with your first sentence.

      In as far and wicked and Godlessness ~ we are discussing unsolicited prayer. in public and not moral transgressions.

      Unless you would like to see Muslims walking about town with their Pray rug in one hand and compass in the other and at the designated time align themselves to the east with nose to ground and butt in to air?

      I’m not sure about you ~ I really don’t want to see it.

      • dan

        did you hear that there is a Miniturette on top of the new Freedom Tower ?

      • Ringgo1

        You can see muslims praying in public in NYC now. Check it out. Dearborn, Michigan, now.

  • Valor

    What really hacks me off is that the mantra of “Separation of Church And State” is a false concept not existing in the Constitution. There is only one place religion is mentioned, that is in the First Amendment in what was originally referred to as “The Freedom of Religion Clause” until secular justices decided it should mean something else. The clause contains two sentences. First sentence: “The Congress shall pass no laws pertaining to the establishment of religion.” The Federalist papers make it clear the intent of this first sentence was to prevent an official state religion such as the Church of England where that was the only choice one had for worship. The second sentence reads “Nor the free exercise thereof!” Americans once understood that clause was not designed to keep religion out of the public square, it was intended to keep government out of religion. When any branch of government or representative of any branch of government tells anyone that they can not pray at any location, or what they may or may not say in their prayer, the government is violating your rights enumerated by that second sentence. Whether it is a city councilman, or the Supreme Court. I personally will tell that agency or individual to go pound sand. Sadly, this lie of separation of church and state has been told for so long and so often 90% of the uninformed, or ignorant people believe it is in the Constitution.

    • 1baronrichsnot1

      right on, I didn’t read yours before I posted mine!

  • jerry1944

    Add we wonder why crime is up and killings rise with out God

    • Anna

      The FBI stats show that violent crime in the U.S. reached a 40-year low in 2010

      • dan

        …and that gun crimes are down 27%
        but that racial / mob assault and violence is up

      • Nadzieja Batki

        If that what the case, then the FBI should have reduced its work force, rented out their buildings and office spaces, the courts should have let go of their buildings and personnel. That hasn’t happened.

  • Red55bird

    The Marxist Communist have all but taken over America.

    • ward

      Commies have not yet taken over ! People like myself have not even begun to fight the tyranny of these unjust arms of satin! There are many things these bastards have not accounted for in freedom loving U.S. citizens that when provoked will readily squelch their totalitarian ways!..!

  • bob

    Obama want’s this to be a muslium country with no other religion. Along with the destruction of the constitution. He want’s total control until he has totaly destroyed this country. He does not care about the american people. All he care’s about is how to take a great nation down. Him and all his communist follower’s like Biden his puppit. This president need’s to be impeached now.

  • Don Berry

    Want to pray? Good, go ahead…to yourself, using your prayer of choice, language of choice, god of choice. Praying out loud puts across opinion…opinion that has no place in government.

    • dan

      bwahahaaa…is that your opinion….THAT has no place in public,lol…
      except for those who abide those pesky God given rights.
      Got citizenship ?

      • Deerinwater

        That is your opinion Dan, ~ That you would exercise your right while openly claim to deny Don’s his, goes to the core of this debate.

        That you fall to see the “Conflict” is the very reason the question is being presented before the court.

        • dan

          the humor in the double entendre escaped you did it ?
          that you fail to see his ludicrous position amuses us….
          to deny God given rights by claiming God given rights…get it?

          • Deerinwater

            I guess it did, I failed see the humor. ` When did God give ANYONE right to disrupt the public with THEIR own notions of prayer?

            Fact of the matter is, ~ Scripture discourages open prayer in public. So how is it that you come to believe such conduct contused as a divine right would be what I would like to understand.

          • dan

            good points ! God is THE God of ORDER and the only legitamate purpose of government is maintain the peace

            by restrainingthe disorderly in conduct….as determined by the citizens in a Republic. Demographics change…and if the majority (not seven black robed appointees who legislate from the bench ) are presented with anamendment ,even a right could be curtailed….but ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED.

            You might like to review the Federalist Papers http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Scripture does not discourage open prayer in public, led by the prophets, priests, rulers. Rulers even prayed with the troops before they sent them out to battles.

          • Deerinwater

            It does too Nadzieja ~ it doesn’t’ matter who they are. ~ Even Jesus , ~ was known to secret off and pray for hours and days alone.

          • Deerinwater

            Oh! i get it now! ~ The Claim of God given rights supersede any and all farther debate! while to do so, is to be seen a defying God! and being construed as being immoral.

            yea ~ that’s humorous Dan.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Which thug told you that fairytale and like a typical stupid you will propagate that fairytale.
      Wouldn’t it more honest of you to admit that you hate God of the Bible and the ones who follow him.
      So the only religion you want to be out in the open is the one the STATE makes up and allows you to practice, it has its own prayers, its own dogma, its own prayer books, its own services, its own priestcraft.

      • Deerinwater

        Don is saying just the opposite of your charge Nadzieja

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But if prayer is removed that is an opinion and the government already has put something else in it place.
      Human predators want no mention of God because he may just curtail their bad behaviors and deceit and treachery and may even eke out punishment for how this country is mismanaged.
      Banishing prayer and God won’t make him go away as much as the Dems/Progs/Leftists have tried.

      • Deerinwater

        It’s not an option Nadzieja , ~ it’s done. ~ I tend to think, an option is what would best serve all.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Any option that would best serve all does not exist and will not exist. You are rather naïve if you believe this.

          • Anna

            An option does exist that would best serve all, Nadzieja. That option would be to honor the Constitution which explicitly states that we are a religion-neutral, secular nation and have no prayer in public meetings.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            There is no such thing as religion-neutrality or a secular nation.

          • Anna

            There most certainly is. The United States Constitution guarantees our freedom of AND FROM religion. We are not a theocracy.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Please state the passage in the Constitution that guarantees that, Anna. I’ll make that easy for you:
            http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/amendments_en.html

          • Deerinwater

            of course there is ~ Nadzieja ~ while perhaps, ~ just not for you and people that share you views.

            We can separate the mule from his smell, the sin of the sinner but can you?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No, Anna, the Constitution does not explicitly state that. But feel Free to prove me wrong if you can.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Anna,

            You write: “That option would be to honor the Constitution which explicitly states that we are a religion-neutral, secular nation and have no prayer in public meetings.” Please point out where the Constitution state this “explicitly” or otherwise.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

  • 1baronrichsnot1

    Our constitution is only as strong as the defenders! Use it or lose it! If SCOTUS is allowed to continue to rule against the constitution, then it will become a useless manefesto! Our constitutional guards are dropping like flies after a spraying. We need to strengthen our defense, argue more on the constitutional legality of bills, because as we all know, the constitution is the law of the people, owned by the people, and is the primary law of the land. 49 states have filed for and asked for a constitutional convention, according to constitutional law congress is supposed to enforce the issue of the states. That is one of the main articles of our constitution! It is past time! Seperation of church and state isn’t in the constitution. It just says we have freedom of religion unabridged in the bill of rights! It doesn’t say a word of where and when we exercise our rights!

  • Deerinwater

    That seems to be the problem with “tolerance”, it’s allows practices to be perceived as a “Right” or “Entitlement” when enjoyed without protest or resistance.

    We have the “Bill of Rights” which defines and guarantees “Personal Freedoms” and the Limits of Government .

    When we practice the right to assemble in Pubic for whatever the reason, when does it stop being personal and become “public” would be my question.

    I’m not completely sure that I know the answer to this question. I need a better understanding of what constitutes public and private.

    .

    • dan

      No. a common misconception is that the “Enumerated rights” are exclussive
      of ALL rights granted by God…or that gvernment is bound ONLY by the laws it can’t get around. turning the truth into lies and lies into the truth is one of the oldest tricks that wanna be tyrants resort to….the difference between public and private is like defing what is secret; if more than one person knows,
      it ain’t a secret anymore.

      • Deerinwater

        I see! ~ everything is seen a public and there is no such thing as “private”?

        is that your final answer?

        • dan

          kind of.,lol . i always was told that God and His angels
          saw me ….
          even in THE DARK
          you might say that privacy is an illusion…
          so give the nosey Neds and NSA something worth watching

          • Deerinwater

            Well I can certainly associate and appreciate the precept of an openness ideology where nothing can stay hidden forever or that it should.

            But we still find ourselves having to deal with issues offered up from the “Grassy Knoll” , do we not?

            Is not possible to ignore the existence of the social self and private self. not in our culture anyway.

            The Apache’s held the belief that a man can no do, things that he can’t talk about. ~ Any attempt to instill such “beliefs” were no doubt a stab at wisdom and offering guidance from a leadership position. For man can do , things he can’t speak of. ~ he just shouldn’t.

            We do a lot of things that we shouldn’t ~ or have you noticed? ~ That is the nature of man and the core reason for faith based worship in the Divine.

            While both man and his government finding themselves left to “deal with this common behavior” AND the “Faith” as well. ~ as people will do evil based on Faith.

            Any reason to do evil seems to work well.

          • dan

            To error is human (mea culpe)…
            to be forgiven is in the hands of the divine.
            Seeking and finding the Will of God…
            and then doing His Will is the key to happiness.

          • Deerinwater

            we agree on that ~ BUT ~ punishment and retribution is best left up to the Divine and not mine to take Dan.

            The evangelical arm of the Christian faith ~ is were you loose me. ~

            If there be a sweet water well, ~ there’s no need of forcing people to drink of it.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          You just blathered nonsense.

          • Deerinwater

            Well, my “nonsense” seems to be making it’s way to the Supreme Court Nadzieja , so obviously I am not alone with my quandary.

            While I might claim to be a Christian, ~ I do not wish to be subjected to someone like yourselves understanding of Christianity in a unsolicited fashion Nadzieja.

            It has been my Christian principal that has permitted people like yourself the luxury of violating the separation of Church and State for so long as you confuse tolerance, love and compassion with a personal freedom not afford you by the law as they are currently written.

            As our nation continues to gain in diversity, ~ the courts is being asked a simple question. What constitutes public and private. ~

            As for myself, ~ my faith and my church, I would think of as “private” ~ having not interest in sharing such things without being solicited by interested parties.

            If you wish to see this quandary as only nonsense, ~ that is up to you Nadzieja. while your opinions are not shared by many Americans.

            Solicitation of you “approval” is not what I seek.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Why does it bother you that people would pray in public?

          • Deerinwater

            i don’t want to wittiness it Nadzieja,~ anymore then I want to see a child disciplined, a hanging, a auto accident , watch you eat or you take a crap.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Yet you apparently don’t mind the turmoil that Power-hungry Liberal Progressives create by running these innocent people through the legal muggings of the Court system.

          • Deerinwater

            apparently so. ~ They are the ones that have pressed the issue to the forefront ~ so they must not mind it either David

  • ward

    Another step to dictatorship by the totalitarian minded appointed cronies that do not represent the majority of U.S. citizens . Between the do nothing congress & the unjust courts the wannabe king is right on track to bankrupting , weakening our military defense & security , destroying Christianity and taking GOD out of the U.S.A. foundation . GOD will only tolerate this sin so long & the wrath of his anger will fall on the once powerful country that was” IN GOD we trust” …….!

  • wavesofgrain

    Faith and Morality has been banned at schools, and liberals spew contempt at law abiding, church going citizens. Liberals, it seems, tend to be those who are corrupt, sneaky and oppose moral standards. Is it any wonder the liberal cities are becoming bankrupt combat zones? It would be interesting to see the percentage of children raised with religious church going families vs the children of non church going families in prison.

    • Chester

      Do you want someone telling you which side of the bed you MUST get up from? All too often, the very religions you say should rule want to do exactly that, and more. Not only do they want to tell you how to get in and out of bed, they want to prescribe exactly what you should wear to bed, and how it should be put on. If you don’t like the bed description, replace it instead with the way you live your life, including who you may or may not associate with.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You did a broad brush stroke vilifying all religions but have you gone to the Holy Scriptures to find out God’s side of the story and what he wants from us.

        • Chester

          I am a pretty firm believer in God and Christ, but I do NOT want ANY religion dictating my lifestyle. Seems that comes from not only supposedly Christian groups, but quite a number of other religions as well. Might even add in a large number of tribal groups, primarily from the Mid-East, which is where the largest part of the major world religions originated.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Then why are you a Liberal Progressive? The Church of Liberal Progressives Forces people to do things they don’t want to do on a daily basis.

          • Chester

            Sir, you are the one who named me such, as I disagree with both sides on a pretty regular basis. And also, you are calling something a “CHURCH” that is not now and has never been an organized religion, let alone a church. I have seen far more Conservative churches that Liberal, and I have seen my share and then some of both.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Liberal Progressivism is, like any religion, based on Faith. And in fact that Faith is more groundless than any of the other religions, since Socialism has been proven to be a failure throughout history. At least the religious people are worshiping something with positive outcomes.

          • JeffH

            Chester says “I am a pretty firm believer in God and Christ, but I do NOT want ANY religion dictating my lifestyle.”

            Just what is it that makes you so afraid of them? Don’t you have the final say in whether or not you allow yourself to be forced or dictated to by any religion? It’s your choice to make all the way.

            Well Chester, if you are letting anybody, a church or otherwise, dictate your lifestyle then you don’t have much of a backbone to begin with do you?

            The only people trying to dictate and force their lifestyles on anybody are the Liberal Progressives using the force of government as their personal bully over those of us that just want to be left alone to live a free, honest and moral life with a limited government.

          • Chester

            Well, sir, that is exactly what i am saying, I no longer stand for being dictated to, even by such as Force Recon, who MIGHT have sufficient authority to attempt it, if he so desired. I am always open to suggestions, but after that, it becomes MY choice as to whether or not I listen And actually, I see far more conservative types wanting to tell me how I MUST live than I do liberals, and that, sir, you can take to the bank.

      • wavesofgrain

        That does NOT sound like the Christian religion to me. As you apparantly seem to speak from experience, what church did you attend? Our country was founded on the principles of Judeo/Christian foundations. Our founders knew, that in order to have a civil society, there must be a moral compass. Capitalism and Spiritual Moral guidelines propelled this country to become the greatest in the world. Millions from all over the world have clamored to become a part of this country. Now, due to liberalism, the culture that formed this great country is being ripped apart. And the results are more Crime and Mayem.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        I’m 64 years old. I’ve not had any religious person Force me to do anything (religiously speaking) that I didn’t want to do in all those years.
        Liberal Progressives, on the other hand, Force me to do things I don’t want to do on a daily basis. I will take religious people over Liberal Progressives any day of the week.

        • Chester

          Apparently you are not a member of some of the more radical Christian sects, let alone any of the others floating around out there. Not sure exactly WHAT a “liberal progressive” might have FORCED you to do against your will, unless it was to think with your own brain instead of following the conservative bandwagon saying it has always been this way, so it CAN’T be changed.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Government is Force, Chester. Every law you Liberal Progressives support is Forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do. The vast majority of Government laws and regulations are not about protecting people from the Force of others, which is the only legitimate function of Government.
            In 1900 Government spent 5% of our Gross Domestic Product. Now the consume over 40% of our GDP. Does Government need to be 8 times bigger now than in 1900? Of course they don’t. It is all about a small minority of Leaders and their Politically Connected pals feathering their own nests at the expense of the rest of us.

          • Chester

            So, are you ready to deal with the elimination of ALL laws? That includes those that say you own something unless and until you either sell it or give it away voluntarily. Don’t suppose you would care for the idea of someone being able to come in and take everything you own simply because they are bigger and meaner than you are. That is exactly the situation you seem to be describing as your ideal, so perhaps you want to rethink your idea on laws. Granted, they make it illegal for some people to do some of the things they would like to do, but, by doing so, they tend to protect ALL of society, not just the strongest.

          • JeffH

            Chester, you have a natural right to worship or NOT worship anything…any “God”, any religion, any church…right?

            Your analogies are totally flawed!

            No one has ever forced you to worship anything, God or otherwise, with the possible exception being your parents or legal guardian. You have a right to ignore, turn away and even protest against any religion you want to but
            you have absolutley no right to force anyone or use the government as a means of force for your “religion” of anti-religious views on anyone.

          • Chester

            Jeff, perhaps you might better understand the analogy if I had referred to laws rather than religions., but I was speaking to a man about what HE expected of life. He was chastising the “Liberal-Progressive” community as if it were a church rather than a very dis-organized organization. By referring to various churches and religions, I was speaking from knowledge of what some of these ORGANIZED groups expect of their members. Oh, and yes, for a number of them, once you are a member, you are very much under their control and regulation. Ask the followers of Jim Jones who followed him to Guyana.

          • JeffH

            Chester, a free man walks in his own shoes…the meek walk in another man’s shoes.

            I personally don’t care for churches and choose to do my worshiping away from them. I was raised and baptized as a Catholic although I never was a regular church goer. My brother graduated from a Christian college, is a Free Will Babtist and for most of his life taught and became principle of a christian school so I’ve also had exposure to his religion, but never by force and he never tried to preach to me.

            I don’t care what kind of power any cult, or organization has over it’s members…if a person becomes so mesmerized by their message and their brainwashing tactics then I believe that those people who do submit are subconsciously searching for something that is lacking in their daily lives.

            As for religion…for the most part I believe that established religions and altruistic movements are focused outward…they attempt to better the lives of members and often, nonmembers and they do show concern for others and make unselfish contributions.

            Of course there are cults and organizations that hide behind the mask of religion and prey on the weak. They have the characteristics of overbearing authoritarian control, the use of deception in recruitment, the use of coercive influence techniques, and the replacement of one identity with another which would not have been freely chosen by the individual before joining the group.

            Cults questions and answers
            http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            We have a natural right to control our own bodies and our own property, Chester. We do not have a right to physically trespass on the bodies and property of others. Government’s only legitimate role is to protect people from the Force of others. That would include physical Trespass on our bodies or property.
            Nothing I have said is limited only to Rich people or Poor people or those in-between.
            Taking people’s money away against their will is NOT protecting all of Society, Chester, it is just Theft.

            It is funny to me, Chester, that you would say — “Don’t suppose you would care for the idea of someone being able to come in and take everything you own simply because they are bigger and meaner than you are”.
            You have described the Big Government that you advocate, Chester.

    • dan

      goes to situational ethics (ammorality) taught /indocrinated into children for 8-hours a day 40 plus hours a week…do as thou wilt…if it feels good do it.
      the change agents that infiltrated the public schools have done their damage
      and we’re seeing the bitter fruit.

      • wavesofgrain

        Dan, you hit the nail on the head. Since Public employees were allowed to unionize in the 70’s, we have seen the decline of education. Academics are replaced by “fuzzy warm feel-good” answers, so there is no right or wrong. Makes the Union teachers’ jobs much easier…no accountability. The Teachers Unions have become a Militant Left arm of the democrats. The MEA had Alinsky Rules for Radicals as their recommended reading on their website. Not sure if it is still there, because a stink was made about in when ‘bama became pres.

  • Red55bird

    It’s time that Christians wake up and smell the Roses, and take a hard look into the mirror and ask themselves, should I just turn my cheek, or get up a fight for GOD ALL MIGHTY. The last real President we had who truly believed that God was the answer was Ronald Reagan, and boy do I miss him. Heart land America has been taken over by extremist who say they’re anti Christian who want to take the word God out of everyday America, and I say over my dead body. These Marxist Socialist have gain power in all branches of the Government in collages and in Media. Billy Graham gave us warning just last week, that America is fast approaching this Marxist agenda in America, all part of the 54 point system to destroy Christianity in America. God law now being replace with mans law, marriage between a man to man or women to women, and the killing of millions of our unborn baby’s calling it a women right to do so. Forgive me for saying this but if God does not look down on America and hear our prayers for help, when we the people have forsaken him for so long now, because we turn the cheek and aloud evil to over take good. America time is running out for good to over take evil and if we don’t have a Rebellion soon, then all will be lost for the next generation, a Nation without God cannot survive.

    • Anna

      All the thousands of gods down through the ages are a human
      construction. You never specified which particular god you seem to think
      is, and has only ever been, the one true god. Which flavor of the eon
      do you think is ‘real’? What evidence to you have for this? Don’t tell
      me to ‘just believe’ or ‘have faith’. Why should I? Do you really think I
      need to believe in imaginary beings in order to be a good and moral
      person? This is my response to your unsolicited pronouncements, a little
      ‘taste of your own medicine’, but please recognize that the US
      Constitution guarantees you and I the freedom of religion. Please
      continue to believe whatever you want to believe. However, when you tell
      me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you
      do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line
      and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution, a secular,
      religion-neutral document by design.

      • Red55bird

        Well my God still love you young lady…………….

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Don’t use that phrase because it is not true. God laid out conditions under which he loves a human being.

          • CommonSense4America

            Gods love is Agape love. It is unconditional love.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            God’s Agape ≠ tolerance for evil aka sin.

          • CommonSense4America

            Like I said,,,unconditional love.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Like I said the deceiving “love”.
            For the God’s LOVE you have to be “born again”.

            “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
            incorruptible, by the WORD of God, which lives and abides for ever … the word of the LORD endures for ever. And this is the WORD, which by the Gospel is preached unto you.” (1Peter 1:23, 25)

            The LORD Gospel is: R E P E N T !!!

            Read Scripture, because “16 All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Timothy 3:16-17)

            Psychopathic Maniac boob666 aka Yoda vote here:
            …………..↓
            ………….▼

        • http://www.rt.com Alondra

          And who is your god?

          The Biblical God says:
          “No one who denies the Son has the Father.” (1Jn2:23)

          If you do not have the Father, so explain, WHOSE ‘unconditional’ love you have?

          “The WRATH of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” (Rom. 1:18)

          I did not know that “unconditional love” is synonym for the “God’s WRATH”.

          “12 [A]ll WHO DID RECEIVE Him, to them He gave the right to BECOME CHILDREN of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 WHO WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

          God Loves HIS children, not Satan’s or of the koranic allah.

          To many self-proclaimed “Christians” Jesus will declare:

          “‘I NEVER knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23), which means: you never were Mine.

          “Whoever does not abide in Me is THROWN AWAY like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown
          into the fire and burned” – Jesus Christ (John 15:6)

          You can’t be God’s child without being plugged to Christ.
          “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt.22:14)

          STOP to preach the Satan’s gospel of appeasement.
          “Do not be attracted by strange doctrines…” (Heb.13:9; Eph.4:14)

          The Christ’s Gospel is about REPENTANCE!
          “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” God lamented in Hosea 4:6.

          Read Bible!

      • dan

        You have the freedom to listen or not…read or ignore…associate or not……you have always had the freedom to choose. You do not have the freedom to silence someon else.
        …and as for proof…
        I’ve got the proof,he said ,with a twinkle in his eye…

      • Nadzieja Batki

        It took all this verbiage to say that you don’t want to acknowledge the God of the Bible and you will be damned if you will obey or believe. Your choice. But you are stepping into different territory when you take it upon yourself to forbid another human being their rights and privileges to believe God and read his Word and Pray. Your choice is to step out of this area and not participate instead becoming a bully to make people do your way.

      • Christopher Richardson

        Anna – You are free to believe, or not, as is your wish. Listening respectfully or playing on your smart phone while others pray is an option – neither hurts you in any way. The gentleman you responded to was speaking to those that consider themselves Christians. If you do not, he was not addressing you or asking you to change your beliefs or take any action. I have always wondered, if someone is comfortable in their own beliefs then why are they so offended by those that express beliefs that differ.

        • Anna

          Because they are in a public venue! What is it about this that believers do not understand? I attend public meetings to get information about my town, not to listen to prayers. It does not matter what brand of prayer it is. It is unconstitutional to pray in a public venue.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You may or may not have a point, Anna, but the issue should be addressed by the people attending the meetings, not the courts who clearly have no jurisdiction over people praying in public places.

          • Anna

            You think that the courts have no jurisdiction over people praying in public places? Really? The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution of the US. If they don’t have jurisdiction and you think the people in the meeting should decide this then you are grossly misinformed.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The Supreme Court was not given the Power of Judicial Review (deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not) by the Founders. It just took that Power and an ignorant citizenry let them get away with it.
            Why would you think a member of the Gang (Federal Government) would protect us from the Federal Government, Anna? Read this article and learn something, Anna:
            http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
            Even if the Supreme Court did legitimately have that Power, as Chip pointed out, the First Amendment is very clear:
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
            Do you get the part about “free exercise thereof”, Anna?

          • Vigilant

            “If they don’t have jurisdiction and you think the people in the meeting should decide this then you are grossly misinformed.”

            No, Ma’am, YOU are grossly misinformed. You would deny those people their individual sovereignty and their freedom to choose. It is YOU who would impose a gag law on people who have every right to exercise their beliefs publicly, any time and anywhere.

            You are the tyrant.

          • Ringgo1

            Muslims in NYC (and Dearborn, Michigan) pray in public, on sidewalks, in parks…five times a day. Are you saying they do not have the right to do this? Do you think the government should stop them? Hmmm?

          • Christopher Richardson

            Clearly it is not unconstitutional. Did you read about the history and current practice outlined int he article? Did you see the SCOTUS has regularly upheld opening prayers as constitutional? I respect your belief and right to express your belief in this public forum. I believe you will be proven wrong when this case is decided. You do not have a right not to be offended.

          • Anna

            Legislators are not there to pray, meditate, or read tea leaves. They
            are there to govern, litigate, and to represent their constituents.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            They are also not there to redistribute our wealth and to exercise Powers which were not enumerated by the Constitution, Anna. But still they do it. And I’m guessing that you support those behaviors.

          • Christopher Richardson

            I agree with your second assertion and think the first two items, and perhaps for some, the third, helps them in their duties. By what right would you deny others the right to their beliefs? Setting aside discussion of the existence of a deity – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – what unavoidable harm is done by calling on a higher power (perhaps it is the collective will of the people represented) for guidance?

          • Anna

            The harm is in assuming that everyone in the public venue (in this case, a town meeting) believes in your brand of religion. Why would anyone do that? Better to uphold the religion-neutral, secular tenets stated in the Constitution and leave religion out of public venues. No one is denying others the right to their beliefs. Believe whatever you want. Just don’t assume everyone in attendance at a public meeting has the same beliefs as you by reciting a prayer to a specific god in this public place.

          • Christopher Richardson

            I will agree to disagree at this point. You view being exposed to beliefs that you do not share as harmful. I view it as keeping an open mind. (Some applaud it as accepting diversity) If all in our country held the position throughout our history that practicing and even exposing differing beliefs was unacceptable, public debate would never occur. Commonly accepted practices, such as slavery, discrimination against those of color, women, etc would still continue. Enjoy your singular view of our world – Might I suggest you spend the time during which an opening prayer is held reading our founding documents.

          • Anna

            Now you are simply projecting, Christopher. There is no diversity in prayers said at town meetings. They are all Christian prayers.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            There could be diversity. I would hazard the guess that most people would be fine with having different speakers giving different opening prayers on different days. Imagine that, people getting along instead of imposing their will on others by Force.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No, they are there to grant themselves and their politically-connected pals special privileges and Power. They just feign to be there to protect the people so as to get re-elected.

          • Anna

            Off-topic, Dave

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You brought it up, Anna, so it is not off-topic for me. Anyway, who appointed you to be the board police?

        • Vigilant

          Good comment.

      • ward

        one thing for sure women that are dictated by muslims are abused & God does not exsist but allah is their mans belief…where is their constitution & do you want that life ???…?

      • S.C.Murf

        You want proof? Open your eyes and look at what God the Father did with this rock that you are standing on. He says if you don’t like it go find your dirt to stand on and get off of His.
        up the hill
        airborne

      • Vigilant

        “…but please recognize that the US Constitution guarantees you and I [sic] the freedom of religion.”

        That’s right, Anna, and the sooner you recognize that it does not guarantee the freedom FROM religion, you might stand a chance of being considered a rational commenter. “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” carries no water with you, does it?

        ” However, when you tell me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution.”

        ROFLMAO! Your misunderstanding of free speech is as limited as your myopic world view. Try to foment a court case over free speech on the basis of any such comment and they’ll laugh you out of court.

        The comment made (” that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life”) is completely legal and IN NO WAY is an infringement of free speech. On the contrary, it’s a perfect example of that freedom you so abjectly misunderstand.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          You seem like an intelligent man (or woman), Vigilant. Yet your comments are typically laced with Argumentum ad Hominem. Is it really necessary?

          • Vigilant

            I’ve learned from the master and I bow to you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I only personally attack those who drew first blood, and therefore deserve my disrespect.

          • Vigilant

            ROFLMAO. Better see that MD about your short term memory problem.. A day or two ago you called me a manipulator (your FIRST comment to me) even though I had not addressed you in any way, shape or form.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            We have a long history, Vigilant. I don’t respect you. I’m not saying that is a permanent condition, but so far you have given me no reason to change my mind.

          • Vigilant

            Forgive me, oh Great One, I forgot the cardinal rule: DaveH is always right (that’s an ad hominem, or as you like to say with your showiness, “Argumentum ad Hominem.”)

            Hell, even I can admit when I’m wrong. I’ve never seen you do that.

            You apparently enjoy the rivalry, as I offered three times to bury the hatchet and you ignored me. THAT opened you up to “ad hominem ad nauseum” as far as I’m concerned.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I was wrong once –> I thought I had done something wrong, but it later turned out that I had been right after all.
            Before you get all stewed, that was a joke.

          • Vigilant

            Well. I up arrowed you on that one. Good one.

          • Deerinwater

            One olive branch completely wasted I fear Vigilant. ~ David is a Principled Hypercritical man. Which direction is up , can be a heated subject of debate and depends entirely on exactly where “David” is at.

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Anna,

        You write: “please recognize that the US Constitution guarantees you and I the freedom of religion. Please continue to believe whatever you want to believe. However, when you tell me or anyone else who reads your comment that they must believe as you do in order to live a truly righteous life, you have crossed the line and your speech is no longer protected by our Constitution, a secular, religion-neutral document by design.” Your understanding of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution is sorely lacking. I suggest you re-read it to obtain a better understanding.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Vigilant

          Thank you for confirming my observations, Mr. Livingston.

        • WTS/JAY

          Is that what you mean by “Taking someone to the woodshed”, Mr. Livingston? :)

      • Vigilant

        “All the thousands of gods down through the ages are a human
        construction.”

        (1) Provide proof and we just might have something to talk about.

        (2) Did it ever occur to you that such universality of belief just might indicate something more than mere imagination? On the contrary, it can as easily be said that BILLIONS of people are on to something when they recognize what a paltry few cannot perceive.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Argumentum ad Populum.

          • Vigilant

            The second argument, yes. The first argument, no.

          • WTS/JAY

            Vigilant: On the contrary, it can as easily be said that BILLIONS of people are on to something when they recognize what a paltry few cannot perceive.

            I happen to think that your statement reveals a remarkable insight on your part, Vigilant, regardless the fact that you could be charged with positing a “Argumentum ad Populum”. Here’s another fellow that traces along the same line… http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.iv.html

          • Vigilant

            WTS/JAY, that’s a superb link, and atheists would do well to read it. It’s a keeper.

            It deals with natural law and reason both. It eloquently describes in part the thinking of the Founders themselves. Jefferson and other Founders’ belief that God and natural law can be known by reason is underscored in the self-evidence of Creator-endowed rights as expressed in the Declaration.

          • WTS/JAY

            I was sure that you would appreciate and benefit from it, Vigilant. A remarkable man, that Calvin. A creature endowed with the finest a gift from His creator; Intelligence.

  • unbridled

    Tradition is as tradition does. If someone doesn’t like it they have the right to remove themselves from the offensive enviroment that they claim to have found themselves in. Never mind that they put themselves there to begin with and now seem compelled to stay there and suffer through what they find so offensive. I laugh when idiots find a poster or billbored that they claim offends them but they stand a gaze at it as if they are being forced to do so. Move, idiot, move!
    People seem to get a charge out of taking something away from others just to suit themselves. Suggestion to the two hags: ARRIVE A LITTLE LATE AT THE MONTHLY BOARD MEETING OR WAIT OUTSIDE THE DOOR UNTIL THE PRAYER HAS CONCLUDED!
    No, of course not, after all you have rights. The problem is that you think your rights outway everyone else’s….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So it has nothing to do with someone being offended that a prayer is said, it has more to do with wanting to control and manipulate people.
      By their own admission these people hate God and want no part in his governance and they will make sure that no one else joins himself to God of the Bible.

      • unbridled

        Good point but I don’t think these people believe in God to begin with. They can’t hate what they do not acknowledge. They Hate God’s people and all that believe in him….
        .

        • Deerinwater

          They don’t hate you unbridled ~ they just see you as perhaps a “Unbridled Zealot” from some cult worship~ that can justify evil works employing the Divine while proclaiming “Righteousness” ~ basically a programmed fruit cake that has the capacity to do anything they feel like doing.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Obtuse.

          • Ringgo1

            Yes, Obtuse, and deliberately so. Proudly so…

          • unbridled

            Thanks for making my point for me, you Godless Heathen. Now, get out of the water before you pollute it….

  • Bill Fleming

    Let me float a crazy idea here. Don’t do any pray from any religion.
    Just start a meeting or session discuss the business at hand and go
    home. Pray at home or in your church of choice. Not exactly sure why an opening pray is needed at all. I know insane huh?

    • TheSilverRanger

      Sadly, those who are in religion don’t believe that. The church leaders in the US and in the Vatican take after the communist parasites and the Marxist altruists, who believe that if you don’t believe what they do, you’ll either be shamed, or killed. What’s more, they believe that your wealth is theirs since the parasites in the church can make nothing for themselves.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Have any of these institutions forced you to attend, contribute, baptize, associate with them? They haven’t because we do not have a STATE religion as Europe and other countries have. Even Israel does not have a State religion.
        God forbid if any religion like RCC and islam took predominance as they have done in Europe or middle east or the islands of the pacific your life and your belongings would not be your own.

        • TheSilverRanger

          Indeed, you are correct. For they are just as bad as those who are in the Vatican. The islamofacists parasites are no better than the parasites in the Vatican. The parasites who are the religious leaders, no matter what the religion, can make nothing for themselves. Their only tools are taxes, tithes, and “donations” meant to trick you into offering that which has not been earned. In America, we’re supposed to keep what is ours.

      • Jana

        The Silver Ranger,
        I am in the process of studying about Communism right now. Communism had two founders. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

        “The Naked Communist”
        I am learning a lot and I plan on learning a lot more. :) Thought it was time to know my enemy. I certainly know my Lord!

        • TheSilverRanger

          Ok….and? I’m kind of wondering what you’re trying to tell me, Jana.

          • Jana

            Oh, nothing really, just that I have deduced that communism and Marxism are the same. I was proud of me. :)

          • TheSilverRanger

            That was…good but…pointless.

          • Jana

            Not really. How many others that might read this may not have know that fact?
            Don’t be so narrowminded!

    • dan

      how about starting with the pledge of allegiance…
      DOH…one nation under GOD

      • TheSilverRanger

        Well played.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        It was written by a Socialist. Aren’t you religious people taught to Not worship false idols?
        “I pledge allegiance to the Flag ….”?
        I saw through that charade when I was a young and dumb teenager. It is simply a method to turn individual thinkers into members of the Big Government worshiping mob.

        • JeffH

          The Pledge was a propaganda prayer written by a socialist who’s goal was to inculcate young minds with dogma.

          Here are the transmutations that the Pledge has undergone since its inception in 1892:

          1892“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1892 to 1923“I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1923 to 1924“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1924 to 1954“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

          1954 to Present“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/05/francis-bellamy-and-the-united-states-pledge-of-allegiance-2/#sthash.ZYBWvdeu.dpuf

          • WTS/JAY

            Patriotism is the substance that greases the skids of war…?

        • gelliott

          Good point, but I still like it. It is one of the few remaining symbols of our tradition and culture that I think helps remind us that we’re all Americans with some key values in common and working for a united and prosperous country. I’d like to hold on to some of these traditions if we can.

        • Chester

          Allegiance has nothing to do with worship and a whole lot to do with who or what you will support. if you choose not to pledge allegiance to the flag of the country in which you reside, perhaps you should resign your citizenship in that country and go to a place you CAN support.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            And there it is, Folks, from the mouth of a Liberal Progressive. Sell your soul to the collective, OR ELSE.

          • WTS/JAY

            Progressives seem to share the same characteristic to that of religious zealots, DaveH; that being; “My way or the Highway”!

      • Bill Fleming

        Ron and Dan; who’s God, yours, mine (or lack there of), a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, etc..? The name of this page is personal liberty” right?

        Let’s first define liberty, okay?

        1. the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction

        2. the right or privilege of access to a particular place; freedom.

        A lot can be derived from the simple definition. I personally lean towards libertarian principles that I will summarize in this sentence:

        One has the personal freedom and individual rights to live ones life free from interference as long as you do not harm or infringe on others personal freedom or liberties.

        Now I personally do not have any issue with any religious activities such as pray at the beginning of a session. crosses on hills, Mosques at the site of the World Trade Center site or Nativity scenes in a city square BUT many do feel it is inappropriate and have made a rightful and allowable voice in opposition; (think 1st Amendment) and have won court cases that validate their position.

        I personally believe it is a waste of effort from both sides since there are considerably more urgent issues than this going on in our country.

        I believe my answer is a valid compromise for all involved in this issue. Leave your beliefs at home or you place of worship. Period end of story. No one will be offended or feel that their particular beliefs are being infringed upon.

        As for Ron’s comment; “God wants you to pray for guidance, direction, for making the right decisions when you are in a leadership position, for others, TOGETHER!!!!”. Well Ron not sure what would be preventing our leaders from gaining their direction from their beliefs; a prayer at the beginning of a session has no effect either way. Does their faith and direction only turn on after a prayer? My understanding is that one’s faith is always present even in absence of pray. Maybe I have that wrong, please clarify if needed.

        If you are dissatisfied with the religious beliefs or lack there of of our political leaders then work to have them replaced with folks more aligned to your beliefs.

        To Nadzieja Batki I am not exactly sure how to interpret your comment. Could you restate it or clarify it for me. Thanks

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Bill says — “BUT many do feel it is inappropriate and have made a rightful and allowable voice in opposition; (think 1st Amendment) and have won court cases that validate their position”.
          We must all be wary of the fact that Leaders love more Power. Of course they will tend to side with whatever direction increases their Power.
          If we truly want our Freedom back, we need to quit supporting those who want to grow Government ever larger.
          http://mises.org/books/century.pdf
          I mean, what next, Prayer Wars?

          • Bill Fleming

            Exactly correct Dave, more time and focus needs to be put on reducing the size of our Government then spinning our tires on this silly issue. The entire focus from both sides of this issue is a waste of time and energy. This issue is of personal freedom and tolerance of others beliefs regardless if you agree with them or not. It is sad that tolerance has become a bad thing in this country and yes I mean tolerance from both sides of the coin.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Then technically there should not be any meetings or sessions because whose mindset will prevail during the meetings or sessions as people bring into them what they are.

    • Ron S.

      our God wants you to pray for guidance, direction, for making the right decisions when you are in a leadership position, for others, TOGETHER!!!! And only if we had that in our Gov’t today maybe this world would not be the sh*t hole it is… he wants you to stand up for Him..not for evil or to be politically correct!!!! Do what’s right for ALL people and PRAYER hopefully will help you get that right!!!

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      It would probably be better if they prayed the whole time. That way they wouldn’t have time to meddle with other people’s lives or spend other people’s money.

      • Bill Fleming

        Excellent Point Dave! LOL

      • WTS/JAY

        Lol!

  • TheSilverRanger

    Religious rights, Mr. Wood? We’re making this big a stink over prayer? You’re free to worship whatever tribal fetish you favor in the privacy and comfort of your own home. But in America liberty is supposed to be our only law–a man’s only duty is to himself. To imply otherwise, therefore, is criminal.

    • Vis Fac

      And if that liberty is withheld in any way shape or form we have no liberty.

      Our Constitution Guarantees freedom of speech PERIOD yet you would limit it to the confines of one’s own dwelling. That my friend is repression NOT liberty or freedom. If a private person wished to lead a prayer they have the right to do so. Conversely those who don’t wish to participate have the freedom to either leave or not participate. Liberal “Political Correctness” has run amok when 1% can dictate what the other 99% is allowed to do.

      It’s time we right the ship and fight for what is ours. I am not afraid to go toe to toe with ANYONE because I have the constitution as my support I will NOT let anyone usurp my rights. I go as far as carrying a copy of OUR Bill of Rights to argue my point. Law enforcement backs down when they know you know your rights.

      A liberal is a power worshiper without power. Liberal one dimensional Idiot-ology is playing with fire by people who don’t know that fire is hot!!

      Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. And DUMBOCRITES are in all too much of a hurry to shut us up. Now
      why is that?

      The worst advertisement for socialism and liberalism are its adherents

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • TheSilverRanger

        Logical.

        • Vis Fac

          Unfortunately there is no logic in the liberal camp.

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • TheSilverRanger

            No, I mean what you’re saying is logical; you bring up a lot of valid points. I’m agreeing with what you’re saying. I’m on your side.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      I’m an atheist, Ranger, but nobody in my life has ever Forced me to pray. On the other hand, I see a lot of Force being applied to those who would like to pray.
      It’s odd to me that you proclaim — “We’re making this big a stink over prayer?” — but apparently don’t see the irony in your comment.

      • TheSilverRanger

        I’m starting to regret posting that comment myself. I’ll have to concede defeat in this argument if I cannot make any sense. I think what I was trying to say is that we shouldn’t be worrying about prayer during a legislative town meeting. We should be worrying about getting the town back in order. There are more important things to be worrying about. Perhaps I should have clarified that earlier. My apologies.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          No apologies necessary, and thanks for your polite response.

        • Bill Fleming

          You got it right Silver Ranger, no regrets man. :-)

        • WTS/JAY

          Two thumbs up, TSR!!!

        • JeffH

          Kudos SilverRanger.

      • Ron S.

        never too late to change TODH..that’s what our God would like you to know! None of us will know til after death, may be too late then…that’s why we have faith and believe and want to pray!!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          I have no interest in changing, Ron. I don’t believe there is a God, but I do believe that the rules of morality are mostly good and beneficial to mankind.

  • wavesofgrain

    Yes, it would be interesting to know which culture’s offspring has cost the taxpayers more in prison and court systems….the god-fearing Christians, or those who withheld spiritual, moral guidelines in their child rearing

  • carl_AF

    I do not like it that there are people that think there is no God of any kind, but I accept their right to believe. I am very much offended by them sticking their noses in other people’s right to believe in their particular God. And, why is it that we have judges sitting on these courts that do not understand what the first amendment is all about. One other thing I believe is that these judges should be replaced if they do not understand what our Constitution states in regards to Federal Government’s and the different United States rights are. Anyone in office that has sworn to uphold the Constitution should be immediately replaced if they do not adhere to it.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Like Environmentalism, National Healthcare, Imperialism, and Anti-Terrorism — the movement against public praying is not about it’s stated goals, rather it is about POWER for the 1% that are the Leaders in this country:
      http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-is-the-1-Percent
      We are in a fight for our lives to stop the Progressive Leaders from committing us to Total Subjugation. They are robbing us of our Property and of our Freedom.

      • Vis Fac

        Oh So True

        Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns

        Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something

        The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

        One cannot really be a Liberal and grown up. George Orwell

        To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

        You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

        Libertas inaestimabilis res est
        Semper-Fi

        • Bill Fleming

          it really starts to lose its impact when you start to copy and paste your comments. :-(

          • Vis Fac

            Bill You are entitled to “your” opinions I do not force anyone to read them What I “copy and paste is MY own and where I quote I provide the author.

            Apparently you are of little faith of learning by ROTE or freedom of expression and forwarding of ideas. If you live in a cave all your life you’ll never learn anything or expand your horizons. Do not read any further for you’ll only be upset!!

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools like you speak because you have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Bill Fleming

            Where did I indicate that I did not agree with your opinion? I simply stated that the repetitive obvious “cut and paste” tactic loses it’s impact. With that said you have made tremendous amounts of assumptions regarding me. SMH Chill out Marine! LOL

          • Vis Fac

            Where did I say that you didn’t? You read into what I wrote what you wanted to. I merely said that no one is FORCING you to read what I post and that you are entitled to YOUR opinion, and nothing more.

            Apparently you do disagree otherwise you would have remained silent like others who might not agree. Your’s is the first so I must believe you disagree.

            It I MY prerogative to do what I wish unless that is what you are trying to stifle, and for that you’d best be prepared for battle because that is exactly what the liberals wish to do.

            I don’t assume anything I respond to what people say. You can learn quite a bit about people by reading what they say and as an entrepreneur I have learned to read people not just by what they say and how they say it but by their body language as well. If I hadn’t honed this ability I would have been out of business within a year.

            Your simple statement regarding my usage of copy and paste tells me you 1) don’t like the content or 2) more to the point disagree in which case your first statement is moot!!

            Benjamin Franklin was rather astute when he said “it’s better to be perceived a fool than open ones mouth and removed all doubt”

            Apparently you like to remove doubt.

            Si I if I were you I’d stop reading now lest you become offended.

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools like you speak because you have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Jana

            I like and learn from his quotes.

          • Bill Fleming

            agreed but you do have to admit it loses it’s punch when you see it over and over again.

          • WTS/JAY

            And your criticism and straying off topic does not?

          • JeffH

            Bill, not at all! I personally like it because I think that it’s a part of Force Recon’s identity here at PLD and obviously a source of his pride too. I respect that!

    • Vigilant

      Alito, Scalia and Thomas understand the First Amendment,

      • wavesofgrain

        It is a shame that Roberts can no longer be trusted…..

        • Vigilant

          Agreed.

    • Vis Fac

      Supreme court justices are appointed for life and cannot be removed unless malfeasance of office has been committed In other words that too can be impeached by congress for failing to act “in good behavior

      Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

      Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns

      Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something

      The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

      One cannot really be a Liberal and grown up. George Orwell

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

  • Muffin Man Mashinksy

    Surprisingly Obummer & his justice dept. are on side of the prayers…..I don’t see the connection to promoting of a religion here…If Jews, Buddhists or Muslims are in meeting opened by Christian prayer they can still go home & go to Mosque, temple, etc without govt. approval

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Aren’t these same religious personages telling us that they all believe in the same God. So the more prattling they do, the more lying they do.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Who in their right mind would expect Federal Courts to protect us from the Federal Government? We need to stop the joke that has Unconstitutionally made the Supreme Court the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality:
    http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

    • Vis Fac

      If we were to do that then we would be just as hypocritical as the liberals who want to get rid of OUR constitution

      Article III of our constitution reads (in part)

      Section 1.

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

      Section 2.

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

      The Socialist the Liberal and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent because they themselves are not. George Orwell

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Can you cite the particular passage, Force, that gives the Supreme Court the right to be the Final Arbiter of the Constitutionality of a law (i.e. Judicial Review)?
        Ask yourself this, Force — Would the representatives from the States in the late 18th century give up their Sovereignty by letting a member of the Federal Government (Supreme Court) decide which laws are Constitutional and which are not?
        Did you even read the article that I linked to?

        • Vis Fac

          Dave I must admit I didn’t read the article I was merely providing text. When interpreting one draws certain conclusions and often the SCOTUS i required to rule on the constitutionality of a particular case the nations uses their opinion as the final say so. When something is not directly addressed there is always someone wanting to take advantage of any “gray area” for their own advantage

          An interesting piece in the article was addressed regarding this subject allow me to provide the “meaty part” [SIC] “The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

          Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.”

          Again the SCOTUS is intended to be an arbiter in legal matters not the final say so. Unfortunately we (myself included) have allowed this to continue

          Thanks Dave for indeed you can teach an old dog a new trick I now have more ammunition to use on unsuspecting liberals

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Thank you, Force. You are a good man, who I would be happy to call friend.

          • Vis Fac

            Likewise !!

            I believe myself to be the wisest man alive, but I do know one thing, and that is that I know nothing and am not ashamed to admit to it!!

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

      • JeffH

        “Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a
        Constitution for a nation I do not recognize.”
        – Justice Antonin Scalia

        “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
        – Samuel Adams

        “A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.”
        – Sam Ervin

        .

        • Vis Fac

          I have often said that politicians are nothing more than despotic hypocrites

          Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell

          “Politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” George Orwell

          Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something.

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • JeffH

            Force, with very few exceptions you are spot on!

          • Vis Fac

            Which exceptions? I’m always open for suggestions

            I believe myself to be one of the wisest men alive, but
            I do know one thing, and that is that I know nothing and am not ashamed to admit to it!!

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools speak because they have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • JeffH

            Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and I do think that Rand Paul is also…far & few though.

          • Vis Fac

            Are What? the exceptions? Maybe for now but you know what is said by having power. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

            As for these patriots I will support them as long as they stay focused.

            Wise men speak because they have something to say; and liberal fools speak because they need/have to say something.

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • WTS/JAY

            I have issues when it comes to Mr. Cruz, JeffH. Specifically, his connections to the bankers through his wife; the vice president in the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman Sachs. No offence, but that turns me right off.

          • JeffH

            Jay, I can understand your reservations with Cruz based on that and there is no offense taken. You had mentioned it before but I’m not quite ready to close the book on him but I’ll certainly log it in the memory bank and scrutinize his every move.

          • WTS/JAY

            It pays to be cautious, my old friend! :)

        • Vigilant

          “At several other points in the debates at the Constitutional Convention, delegates made comments indicating their belief that under the Constitution, federal judges would have the power of judicial review. For example, George Mason said that federal judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void.” James Madison said: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.”

          “In all, fifteen delegates from nine states made comments regarding the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws. All but two of them supported the idea that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not speak about judicial review during the Convention, but did speak about it before or after the Convention. Including these additional comments by Convention delegates, scholars have found that twenty-five or twenty-six of the Convention delegates made comments indicating support for judicial review, while three to six delegates opposed judicial review. One review of the debates and voting records of the convention counted as many as forty delegates who supported judicial review, with four or five opposed.

          “In their comments relating to judicial review, the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts’ power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.” (Wikipedia)

          As you can see, judicial review was far from something “new” to the courts (state courts used it for years prior to Marbury v. Madison). The vast majority of Constitutional delegates and the Father of the Constitution himself supported the concept.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Maybe kagen and her cohorts should rethink their meddling because every time they meddle in religious issues they screw them up more. All this tells is that the supreme court justices lack sense and discernment.

  • KingKen

    I’ve had it and I personally hereby secceed from the USA-!! I now declare myself a sovereign human being subject only to the Divine and Natural Laws of our Creator God.
    I will pray whenever and wherever I damn well please-!!!

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Morally you are correct, but Gangs don’t care if you are morally correct or not, so good luck with that.

    • Vigilant

      “I now declare myself a sovereign human being subject only to the Divine and Natural Laws of our Creator God.”

      Agreed, and that was declared In the Declaration of Independence.

  • Ruth DelaCerda

    Deny God and He will deny you. Hell just keeps getting more and more crowded

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Shouldn’t belief in God be based on faith in him rather than fear of going to hell.

      • Quester55

        When one starts Splitting Hairs on Faith in The Lord our GOD, It’s best if your Neck isn’t on the line!

        • Jeremy Leochner

          The difference between people of faith and cowed slaves is not Splitting Hairs Quester.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jeremy (aka Flashman), you don’t really expect people to buy your nonsense, do you?
            You, being a Liberal Progressive who advocates modern-day slavery, have no legs to stand on when talking about “cowed slaves”.

          • WTS/JAY

            Ah! Good marksmanship, DaveH!

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Only if that Faith is in Jesus…the God of the Bible….

        • Jeremy Leochner

          Jesus was a man. A man I respect. But he was not God. And the God of the bible comes in two flavors. Old Testament and New Testament. Do you go the Jewish way or the Christian way. People have a right to choose. And their choice should not be based on fear.

          • Jana

            Jeremy your ignorance is showing. Jesus was God. He is the Son of God

            John 1:3-5

            3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. (This is Jesus the Christ that is being talked about here)

            4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

            5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
            Jeremy guess who the darkness is? YOU!

            By the way, The Old Testament is brought forth in many ways in the New Testament. So we study both the Old and the New. Don’t be fooled!

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Wrong….Jesus is the SON OF GOD and is a Living God Today….yes he was in the Flesh when he was on the earth….Read and study the Bible….
            I was only stating the facts….I made no reference to being able to choose…..The God of the Bible gives us the right to choose….we can believe in Jesus of the Bible and all of God’s teachings or we can choose not to….
            Islam is the only one that uses fear and intmidation…..Why is that Islam wants to DETROY ALL THE INFEDELS…..That is everyone that does not believe in their DEAD FALSE GOD….

          • WTS/JAY

            Jeremy: Jesus was a man. A man I respect. But he was not God. And the God of the bible comes in two flavors. Old Testament and New Testament. Do you go the Jewish way or the Christian way.

            Tell that one to Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Saviour based on both, the old and the new Testament, Genius!

      • Jana

        Jeremy, That statement doesn’t even make sense. Of course we love the Lord our God because we do LOVE HIM WITH ALL OUR HEART!

        However, in HIS word HE tells us what will happen to those who worship any other god and HE says, Ex 34:14

        14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
        KJV
        The communists believe the only god of man is man himself.

        You want just part of the truth, or do you want all of the truth????

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Did you expect sense from a multi-personality shill, Jana?

          • Jana

            Not really Dave. And, thank you for being you.

          • JeffH

            …and circular reasoning.

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            For Jeremy…More like lack of reasoning….When he starts to talk about what the Bible says…when he has already admitted that he is not a Christian….He shows that he is pullling things out of THIN AIR…

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Jeremy….I suggest that you go read and study the Bible…..before you make statements about it…..It is obvious to all of us on here who are Christians and have STUDIED the Bible….that you have no idea what you are talking about…

      • WTS/JAY

        Shouldn’t belief in the law be based solely on faith in the law rather than fear of going to jail?

      • Vigilant

        Indeed, just as atheism is based on faith that He doesn’t exist.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Its an interesting debate. We are not a christian nation. We are a Republic. We have to recognize and honor everyone’s religious rights beliefs. Of course it would be impossible to offer a meeting opening which honors the religious beliefs of every single person living in the city of Greece. I don’t care so much about the religious institutions but if the majority of the people of Greece consider themselves Christians than that needs to be honored and respected as well. As an Agnostic who does not believe in god I have an ambivalent view of prayers at public meeting. I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure or church dogma. But most public prayers don’t do this and since it does not sound like these public meeting openings did that I see no problem. I say the people of Greece New York are the ones affected by these meetings. Its their representatives doing it. If they are okay with prayers in the opening of their public meetings I see no reason to get the courts involved.

    • TML

      Jeremy says, “I have an ambivalent view of prayers at public meeting. I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure or church dogma.”

      Why is there a problem if such a prayer were to mention a religious figure? Define “church dogma”. If it’s under the idea that it might offend someone’s poor wittle feelings then you’re opening the whole can of worms regarding the freedom of speech itself, majority or not.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Religious figures such as Abraham or Jesus or Mohammed denote a particular religion. Since Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same god and since Buddhists and Hindus do not hold to a creator based religious belief it is entirely possible for a prayer to be held in which no particular religion is represented. It can be on behalf of all people and can be respectful of all their beliefs However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular. Instead of a public meeting suddenly your in the midst of a sermon. As for church dogma perhaps that is a bit to much to judge on. Perhaps instead if specific dogma is used such as the invoking of the trinity or as I said praying in the name of a particular religious figure.

        This isn’t a matter of hurting peoples feelings. This is a matter of peoples rights to their own beliefs. A persons spiritual or religious beliefs are often at the core of their sense of themselves and how they view the world. It is part of the mixture of deeply held beliefs that make up our political and social selves. I do not believe in god. Yet I live in a country where every President has ended their oath of office with the words “So help me God”. Where “In God We Trust” is on the money and where in order to Pledge Allegiance you must admit that this is a nation under god. I have always accepted these things as tradition and see no problem with them. I have no problem with prayers in public meetings or places. What I do care about is the issue of prosthelytizing or endorsing a particular religion over another. I respect peoples religious beliefs and I ask that mine be respected in turn.

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          NOT CORRECT….Christians are the only ones who believe in Jesus of the Bible….Jews believe that Jesus was just a Prohet…and that their Real Savior is still Comming…..Muslims believe that the fake god Allah…..Isalm was started more than 600 years after the Birth of Christ….The Koran is a VERY DISTORTED view of the Old Testament….

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Freedom Train its not the Prophet its the god. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same god. To Muslims Allah is the same god who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses and Jesus. Yawweh. Jehovah. Allah. Different names. Same God.

          • Jana

            Jeremy NO THEY DO NOT!!! Again your ignorance is showing greatly here. Jews and Christians believe in the same God, but not the Muslims. Ask the Muslims they will tell you they don’t. Otherwise why would they want Christians to denounce our God?

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Jana….You are so corect….The main difference between Christian and Jews is that Christians believe in the New Testament….That Jesus is our Lord and Savior…and i the Son of God….Jews believe only in the Old Testament…and believe that Jesus was just a Prophet….and the that the Real Savior is coming….

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            NO….. they do not believe in the same God…..Read and study the Bible….as it is very clear on this…..

          • WTS/JAY

            Yours is an excellent example of double-speak , Jeremy.

        • Jana

          This is just a polite way for a socialist agenda to come in and take God out of our vocabulary and our of our society.

          In truth you do NOT respect peoples religious beliefs or you wouldn’t be saying anything at all.

          As Vladimir Lenin said,” Most people on the left aren’t communists, just the useful idiots being used by the socialist agenda which is a first and necessary step toward communism.”

          If the shoe fits Jeremy.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Jana I do not believe in God. However I have no desire to remove God from our vocabulary or society. I just don’t want society to forget that people like me are still part of society. I don’t want to push a socialist agenda. I am not sure how socialism even factors into this. My rights to religion and speech are just as important as yours Jana.

          • Jana

            I am not sure how socialism even factors into this.

            Because you sound like a socialist. You have the values of a socialist. You have been taught by socialists.

            First you say we are not a Christian Nation. We have been blessed by God since this Nation became a Nation. You may not believe it and you don’t have to, but it doesn’t change the fact that we have. We have never been attacked by another country on our soil. That is a blessing!

            “I have no problem with them so long as they don’t reference a particular religious figure” while they are praying is what you say. Then why waste their breath praying? For that is what it is a waste of breath talking in the breeze to nothing!

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say; and foolish liberals speak because they have to say something.” Force Recon.

          • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

            Socialism factors in because True Marxist Siocialism is about the State being in Complete Control of everything….So if people believe in the Living God of the Bible…they are placing that belief above the state….So the Marxist Socialist Communist Agenda can not function without destroying all other belief’s except theirs…

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Socialism factors in, Jeremy (aka Flashman), because we know you are a Socialist.

          • Vigilant

            “My rights to religion and speech are just as important as yours Jana.”

            Then why are you advocating the stifling of religious expression that doesn’t conform to your own views?

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re on a roll, Vigilant!

        • TML

          Jeremy says, “It can be on behalf of all people and can be respectful of all their beliefs However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular.”
          “This is a matter of peoples rights to their own beliefs. A persons spiritual or religious beliefs are often at the core of their sense of themselves and how they view the world. It is part of the mixture of deeply held beliefs that make up our political and social selves.”

          Indeed, so why then would it be acceptable to have them personally repress what is at the core of their sense of self? To them, and them alone they endorse a religion, but that doesn’t translate to government endorsement just because it takes place in a government building or gathering. No law had been created which requires participation, or even acceptance, in a way that violates other peoples right to their own beliefs, and the right to say it aloud. It would seem most reasonable to assume the freedom of religion principle demands tolerance of such things from those who hear it, rather than the nonsensical claim that the one saying the prayer is somehow violating a right to others own beliefs.

          Jeremy says, “I do not believe in god…. … I respect peoples religious beliefs and I ask that mine be respected in turn.”

          Then as an atheist, you should agree that you don’t actually have a “religion” which can be violated.

          • WTS/JAY

            Superb!

          • Vigilant

            “Then as an atheist, you should agree that you don’t actually have a “religion” which can be violated.”

            Excellent point. The atheists and agnostics will tell you they are not a religion, regardless of their inability to prove their beliefs.

            Yet, if they say they are not a religion, then they cannot be guaranteed “the free exercise thereof” under the Constitution.

            Looks like they’ve painted themselves into a corner.

          • WTS/JAY

            At best, you can only point out the contradictions in Jeremy’s worldview, TML, but you will never educate him, i’m afraid. But your valiant efforts are certainly admirable.

        • Vigilant

          “Buddhists and Hindus do not hold to a creator based religious belief it is entirely possible for a prayer to be held in which no particular religion is represented.”

          Buddhists and Hindus are not the ones bitching about it. They’ve got a lot more sense than those who are bitching about it.

          • WTS/JAY

            Excellent observation, Vigilant!

        • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Jeremy Leochner,

          You write: “However when you end the pray with “In Jesus name” for example you have suddenly turned it into an endorsement of the Christian religion in particular. ” Regardless, unless and until CONGRESS makes a law establishing a religion there is no violation of the 1st Amendment, whether it is Congress being led in prayer, the courts, city council meetings or school functions, so the rest of your comment is a waste of space and mindless argle bargle.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

        Why is there a problem….BECAUSE ALL THE MARXIST SOCIALIST LIBERALS WANT ALL REFERENCES TO CHRISTIANITY REMOVED FROM OUR SOCIETY…..BECAUSE JESUS AND THE BIBLE ARE A REAL THREAT TO THEM AND THEIR MARXIST SOCIALIST AGENDA OF COMPLETE POWER AND CONTOL…

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      It’s odd that you don’t want people to be exposed to prayers of which they don’t approve, but you don’t mind a bit helping yourself to other people’s money and personal choices against their will, Jeremy. Your philosophy is just a bit inconsistent.

  • TML

    I expect the SCOTUS will rule appropriately. The text is clear and simple, that a ‘separation of church and state’ in the Bill of Rights only involves a barrier for the Federal government in creating laws that ‘respect’, or favor, any single religion and thus serves as a barrier against an established theocracy. While at the same time, prayer in any sphere of government buildings or gatherings (even public schools) falls squarely under the freedom of religion clause, and cannot – even logically – be considered “endorsement of religion”. Even atheists understand that (whether they care or not is another matter, such as the fools who espouse Freedom ‘from’ Religion).

    • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

      There is no such thing in the Constitution as SEPEATION OF CHURCH AND STATE….It only says that the Federal Government cannot set up a State Religion…..This Concept of Seapartaion of Church and state came into being by Court Rulling….on a narrow issue…that the Liberals have redefined to make people believe this concept…

      • Jana

        Yet the LAWYERS got into the mix and made a mess of this!

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          EXACTLY…..

      • TML

        The phrase can be used to support the error of claiming a freedom from religion, but only when taken out of context of the actual words in the 1st Amendment that established the barrier. It was not a Court concept, it was first stated by Thomas Jefferson which necessarily includes the proper context of that barrier, as I included above.

        “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802

        • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

          There have been Supreme Court Ruling…the first of such was in 1947….on a very Narrow per case ruling that the Left has distortorted to blanket what they now refer to as the Seaparation of Church and State…Since this time there have been more rulling to that effect….that further distort the intent of the First Amendment…

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

          The “Separation” principle and the Supreme Court

          Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).[39] In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

          The centrality of the “separation” concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

          While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a “wall between church and state” or a “separation of Church from State”: their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: “Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia’s great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth.” Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that “[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters.”

    • Quester55

      Please T.M.L., don’t confuse those Socialist/Liberals with the TRUTH, It’ll confuse the H – E – L – L – out of them!

  • http://www.thefreedomtrainusa.com/ FreedomTrainUSA

    It is time that “We the People”…Appeal the So Called Judges in the Federal Courts….and remove them…

  • Quester55

    O.K., Lets see if I got this Correct. If My Congressman Is Sitting at his Appointed Seat & Decides to utter a little Prayer, then he’s in direct violation of some ATHEISTIC/MUSLIM Law??
    Golly gee wiz, my oh my, what shall we ever do about this outrageous criminal?
    30 Years to Life, Seems a bit harsh, so how about making the offender, Speaker of the House as Punishment for his wayward ways?

  • http://batman-news.com Jim B

    Nuts!

  • colleen friemuth-betsinger

    ATHEISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS THEY ARE CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. THEY HATE GOD AND DON’T BELIEVE. THEY WANT TO TARE GOD FROM ALL OF OUR HISTORY, INTERESTING FACT HOWEVER, ATHEISTS ARE STARTING THEIR OWN CHURCH, ONE ON GENEVA ROAD GOING EAST TOWARD GLEN ELLEN ILLINOIS ON THE RIGHT SIDE CALLED ATHEIST CHRISTIAN, CAN’T MISS IT. STARTING THEIR OWN RELIGION!! I WOULD CALL THESE PEOPLE HYPICRITS. AMAZING!!

  • Justin M.

    I think a few of you would have different opinions if the majority of the prayers were from a different religion. Also, on a site called “personal liberty” you should probably support the views of the 2 women even if you enjoy the prayers.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Do you understand the concept of Liberty, Justin? It means for Government to leave people alone to control their own bodies and their own property.
      Government meddling can in no way be construed to be related to Liberty.

      • macgyver1948

        TheOriginalDaveH … What are you saying here? With you saying “Do you understand the concept of Liberty, Justin? It means for Government to leave people alone to control their own bodies and their own property. Government
        meddling can in no way be construed to be related to Liberty” are you for abortion? I mean if the government stops women from getting abortions doesn’t that mean the government is denying Liberty? I am just wondering how far you will go with it and if “Government meddling” to your side is only when you see reality differently from how you want it to be for you. Just asking.

  • Chuckb

    This country is still b

  • Chuckb

    This country is still basically a Christian Nation by majority.So please tell me why we have to abolish our standards to pacify a Muslim orJew who are offended by our prayers.

    • macgyver1948

      Chuckb… if we went by a majority we would be negating Freedom Of Religion. In the minds of those who might want America to be a Christian nation the Constitution says otherwise. No where in the Constitution does it say or imply or suggest that America is a Christian nation. It mentions the Creator and God but no where does it say Christian, Christ or Jesus. This is a nation for all religions or, again, we would be negating Freedom Of Religion.

      Now I know the Founder were Christian but they knew how so many nations in History with a dominant religion, including predominately
      Christians nations, those who weren’t Christian, or not Christian
      enough, were not treated fairly by those who were and in many cases
      the authority as well. Do you remember why the Pilgrims felt the NEED
      to Leave England and from whom they were fleeing and why?

      I remember during the Republican Presidential debates for the
      nomination there were certain Christian candidates who stated Mormons were not Christian enough for them, trying to [put Romney down. Who is to decide who is or isn’t. These are some of the reasons the Founders deliberately did not make America a Christian or any other kind of religion but instead a nation for all religions.

      Aren’t many on the Right saying they are for the Constitution? If so why negate Freedom Of Religion by saying what you say with “So please tell me why we have to abolish our standards to pacify a Muslim orJew who are offended by our prayers”? Sounds a little bigoted to me.

      • Chuckb

        Mcgyver, The Christian people who founded this nation considered Jesus Christ as their God, so when they use that term, they are is essence referring to the Christian God.

  • macgyver1948

    I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion. That goes for in schools (yeah, I want silent prayer back in schools) as well as in government sessions and buildings.

    • WTS/JAY

      mac: I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion.

      Then to “whom” or to “what” would you be praying?

      • macgyver1948

        Jay… What are you assuming here? I mean each person should pray to whomever they see as God according to their chosen religion and beliefs. But to answer your specific question I pray to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Not a what. Do you want to deny me that?

        I would assume many Conservative Christians would not want to hear about Muhammad during their prayer times so why would anyone assume Jews and Muslims would want to hear about Jesus during their prayer times?

        If we are legal citizens of America, of whatever religion, we have that right according to the Constitution. The Constitution, with Freedom Of Religion, also means Freedom from your religion if I choose.”Don’t tread on me”. I would never deny you your religious rights.

        • WTS/JAY

          You said: I am so ok with prayer if it is not specific to any religion.

          How could that be possible?

          • LZ

            Only possible in a liberal’s mind. I have nephew who says this kind of stuff all the time!

          • WTS/JAY

            The public education system has destroyed more lives than all wars in human history.