I mean, all this angst this whole issue has caused you it’s only logical that you make an appearance and let your opinions be known to the commissioners.

And doing it in public removes any cover they may enjoy if you notify them by phone or whatever other means.

I really think your should go for it gene.

whining? Why do you feel the need to continually use pejorative words about those who disagree with you? It must be that little voice in your head.

Is it possible that your adoration of anti-Christianity has led you to the depths of dumb?

Are you not capable of comprehending because of your addiction to refuring everything I say?

Whatever the excuse du jour is…

” But, here is the operative sentences written by the editorial staff at the Daily Sentinel. ”

” Unless you feel tough enough to call the editorial staff a bunch of idiot, morons, or liars.

I disagree with them more than I agree with them, but they seldom fail on factual information. ”

You don’t have a problem with anything I said, but what the editorial board said.

Feel free to attend every meeting and make your demands for equal time in public and on record.

In fact, instead of all this whining on here, go show the world what an upstanding American Citizen you really are.
Put in an appearance and make your demands known to the entire free world.

It will be a good thing gene, just DO IT!

(you know you want to Gene. Why not obey that little voice in your head that keeps telling you to do the right thing?)

What you conveniently left out Johnson is that the Supreme court decisions specifically prohibit invocations which promote one religion over another. Mentions of Jesus for example are prohibited but routinely violated by those who don’t care about the law, just promoting their own religious cult. Also the courts rulings have noted that the deity of religions other than the Judeo/Christian god must be admitted if called for. I propose that we also pray in these meetings to Allah, the Wiccan deity and other deities who have adherents among the taxpayers in this county. As you pointed out no one has to pay any attention to these prayers, so let’s have them!

My bad. I looked at the wrong letter. (See how easy it is to admit when you’re wrong?)

However, the editorial in question did not quote the part of the Marsh decision that just as unambiguously stated that the prayers in question must be non-sectarioan in nature - in other words, not mentioning specific deities. This has been upheld in numerous cases since.

And if you’ll notice, I have never claimed that the prayers must stop. I have only said that they are unconstitutional, which they are because the majority reference a specific deity.

Can’t read and understand simple words.

I said; ” “Scott, before you spend much more time on this subject, might I direct your attention to the editorial page of the Daily Sentinel?

If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.”

The key word was ‘editorial’.

Your response? ” Oh, you mean the one that had nothing to to with the actual issue? The one that talked about the individuals right to pray wherever they want and be led by clergy of their choice, which no one is threatening in any way? That letter? ”

No scott, I said ‘editorial’.

But, here is the operative sentences written by the editorial staff at the Daily Sentinel.

” While our public servants could be spending time doing business that is in the best interest of all of us, they will, instead, be debating the pointless issue of whether they should continue to pray before they meet. They will dispatch their lawyers to do research. All of that is a giant waste of time and resources.

We can save them a little time and money. The Supreme Court has already decided this issue. It did so 25 years ago in a case known as Marsh v. Chambers.

The claim in that case was identical to that being made by the Mesa County atheists: Public prayer before a legislative body is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

To that claim, the court said: Hogwash.

The court said the “unique history” of prayer before legislative bodies “leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.” It was, after all, the same men who wrote the Establishment Clause who paid for chaplains to offer prayers before Congress.

What’s more there’s little chance that ruling will ever be overturned. Charles Haynes, a scholar at the Freedom Forum in Nashville, said the ruling is unambiguous, and as such is likely to withstand any attempts to challenge it.

So there’s little doubt that an invocation before a public legislative body begins its work passes constitutional muster. And that’s precisely what the Grand Jucntion City Council does before its meetings. It has an invocation. There is no requirement for anybody to pay attention to it, although we suspect there are a fair number of people, including council members, who do. ”

And the key words in that were;

” The claim in that case was identical to that being made by the Mesa County atheists: Public prayer before a legislative body is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.”

The claim was IDENTICAL scott.

Unless you feel tough enough to call the editorial staff a bunch of idiot, morons, or liars.

I disagree with them more than I agree with them, but they seldom fail on factual information.

If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.

I know that you don’t much like reading stuff with facts and data, but please give it the ‘old college try’.”

Oh, you mean the one that had nothing to to with the actual issue? The one that talked about the individuals right to pray wherever they want and be led by clergy of their choice, which no one is threatening in any way? That letter?

Where does the Bill of Rights “guarantee” the right to be led in a sectarian prayer during a city council mneeting? Care to point out that Amendment?

It does if it mentions a specific deity. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

“The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that such an invocation does not violate the ‘establishment’ clause.”

Unless it mentions a specific deity, which the vast majority of the city council prayers have done. See the case mentioned above.

“Your premise is based on falsehoods and lies.”

Not at all, but yours is based on misunderstandings.

“Yeah, you pretty much are the novice on this subject. Or, at the very least, ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, (pick your favorite term).”

Projecting much?

“Like gene, you are as smart as you can be.”

Being compared to Classof52 is a compliment. Thanks.

If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.

I know that you don’t much like reading stuff with facts and data, but please give it the ‘old college try’.

” THE BILL OF RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY **** RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT**** FROM INFRINGING…”

Exactly my point. And since sectarian city council sponsored prayer as part of their meeting infringes on those rights, it is unconstitutional. Glad we agree. ”

No scott, the only thng we agree on is your failure to understand that a ‘prayer’ does NOT establish a religion.

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that such an invocation does not violate the ‘establishment’ clause.

Your premise is based on falsehoods and lies.

Yeah, you pretty much are the novice on this subject. Or, at the very least, ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, (pick your favorite term).

Like gene, you are as smart as you can be.