Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
How has a sentence so simple as Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution caused so much controversy? A government body that chooses to invoke the blessing of deity prior to conducting business has nothing to do with legislation “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The Western Colorado Atheists say that such invocation makes advocates of their own doctrine (call it what it is) feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. Why, in a republic that guarantees the freedom of an individual to choose whether or not he or she wishes to participate, would anyone feel uncomfortable being in the presence of an opposing system of beliefs?
Council members who participate in the invocation are not forced to be involved — they choose to. Why should those who choose to be involved in something have to fear “offending” those who choose not to be involved? Why, I ask, are so many Americans convinced that they have the right to be always comfortable, ever welcome and perpetually pleased?
I believe that the Grand Junction City Council, as well as any government in America, has the right to invoke a blessing if they believe it will aid them in their task of governing and if they, as a group, choose to do so. If they do not have such a choice, has their freedom not been unfairly limited? Instead of feeling unwelcome or uncomfortable the next time the City Council bows their collective head, perhaps the WCA members should reflect on how fortunate they are to live in a society that guarantees each individual a choice to believe or not.
DAN BELCASTRO
Grand Junction
29 Responses to “City Council prayer is a choice”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Very well put, Mr. Belcastro!
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well put, but wrong.
The city council is a government entity. That entity does not have the freedoms that individuals have. That entity cannot endorse one religion over others. The vast majority of city council prayers are Christian in nature. They specifically refer to Jesus Christ - a specific deity. This is unconstitutional.
No one is suggesting that prayer be outlawed - only that it not take place in government. What is wrong with that?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The entity in question does not have the power to endorse or enforce one religion over another.
” They specifically refer to Jesus Christ - a specific deity. This is unconstitutional. ”
No Scott, it is not ‘unconstitutional’.
No atheist has the right to interfere with the “Free Exercise Thereof” portion of the first Amendment.
The simple act of offering a prayer does not constitute the ‘establishment’ of any religion over another.
Nor is there any ‘right’ guaranteed by the Constitution of never having to be around any religion, or the freedom to never ‘feel’ marginalized, or any other ‘feeling’.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Plain and simple, the city council is a government entity and as such, does not have the Free Exercise” rights granted to individuals.
The individual members of the council can pray, but when they are acting as the city council, they cannot take an action that endorses a specific religion. The “simple act of offering a prayer” DOES endorse a specific religion if it mentions a specific deity - like Jesus. The Supreme Court has determined this. The prayers offered in council meetings, as the records show, mention Jesus the vast majority of the time. Ergo, they are unconstitutional.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This has been hashed over time and again with the same tired arguments.
The minority is saying is their Constitutional right to demand that the City Council not have an invocation.
The majority saying “What’s the big deal? Don’t participate if you don’t want but don’t expect to take away our rights because you are offended.”
SInce I was not there 200 years ago, nor am I a great legal mind… I would not presume to speak to intent of our founding fathers. I’m simply pointing out we all have our own opinions and THIS IS GETTING NOWHERE. Can we find a new subject to debate to death????
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The point is that the majority are assuming rights that they don’t have.
Shouldn’t that be of concern? Or is it all right since you agree with them?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And you, Scott, are assuming you understand intent of what those rights should be. The majority is only “assuming rights” in the minds of the some. All the while, the minority is also “assuming rights” on the opposite side. Were you there 200 years ago or are you a great legal mind in order for you to be an expert and speak to intent?
To answer your question, no, it is not a concern to me. Because I agree? In part, yes. Mostly because this is the same tired argument that is tearing this country to bits and I trust that eventually, clear heads and fair minds will prevail. I still have faith in my God and my country.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I understand that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone, not just the majority. Some people have the crazy idea that minority groups should just sit back and let their rights be trampled by the majority.
Imagine that.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott is quite correct in his assesment. While many love to claim that they believe in democracy, when they are in the majority, what they actually practice is “mobocracy.” What they fail to do is heed the warning that a “tyranny of the majority is no less onerous than that of a minority. Because they can, they do. And there is never ever the consideration as to whether they should. That would require a self-restraint which most people lose when in groups, in particular when what is at the basis is emotion, and neither “reason” nor “logic.” One can either be guided in one’s actions by “emotion” or by “reason.” And, if “emotion” is to be employed (which at times it is) the objective or task should first be determined and defined by “reason.”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, I am much afraid, is taking the position stated in a Daily Sentinel article from several years ago. It was that “rights” are “abstract notions.” They are not, not if one desires to keep one’s own “rights.” While not physical, they are real nonetheless. Perhaps the lady would care to consider that, if she chooses to bring her religious convictions into state matters, then the state has every right to determine what is taught in her church and how she can worship. The danger represented by opening that door of theocracy is not a “one way.” So, unless she is prepared to accept the consequences, of the state interfering into her religion, she would do well to make quite certain that it stays, not only closed, but bolted and barricaded.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A minor detail.
The United States is NOT a democracy.
It IS a Republic.
We do not have ‘mob rule’ except when somebody holds a riot and burns their neighborhood down.
A ’shoot to kill’ order soon puts the rioters into a much more agreeable mood, but finding a politician that respects the general rules of polite society anymore…
They just aren’t there.
Oh… You already said that…
” Because they can, they do. And there is never ever the consideration as to whether they should. That would require a self-restraint which most people lose when in groups, in particular when what is at the basis is emotion, and neither “reason” nor “logic.” One can either be guided in one’s actions by “emotion” or by “reason.” And, if “emotion” is to be employed (which at times it is) the objective or task should first be determined and defined by “reason.” ”
It’s all about ‘feeling’ for the downtrodden, of which there are none in this country.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson again misses the point, and goes off on a tangent. Had he paid closer attention, he would have noted that what was said in my post was “in democracy”; i.e. such as in the exercise therof. We are all well aware that this country was established along the lines of a republic.
As usual, he defines his terms all too narrowly, and to suit his purposes. A case in point is “mob rule”, which he defines only as a “physical mob” only. Apparently the gentleman needs to expand his perspective in order to include the world of concepts and ideas into his thought process, and not mere words.
He then goes on to say that their are no “downtrodden” in this society. In must be nice to be able to live in such a fantasy world, undoubtedly one of his own creation where he feels comfortable. There have been, and continue to be downtrodden in every society. Denial of that fact does not make it any less true.
One has to wonder which “history” texts the gentleman has been reading, and question if perhaps he has not withdrawn into a narrow and comfortable existence where nothing unpleasant is allowed to intrude.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres-you might want to ask WLJ to provide “hard evidence” (the same type he insists others supply to him) to bolster his statement that,”It’s all about ‘feeling’ for the downtrodden, of which there are none in this country.”
I’ll bet you any amount of money you want that he will not provide even a mediocre answer to your challenge. WLJ is totally predictable on this score.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot: “I’ll bet you any amount of money you want that he will not provide even a mediocre answer to your challenge. WLJ is totally predictable on this score.”
Well I give WLJ credit for one trait: he is consistent. He consistently makes statements which he presents as gospel truth (but are merely opinion) and consistently ignores calls to back up his statements with evidence. When presented with data which rule out any likelihood of his statements being true, he consistently attempts to wiggle out by going off on tangents or (as Scott says) moving the goal posts. His methods, while consistent, are totally transparent and have given me some great chuckles in the past two weeks since one can only laugh at such a brazen display of truth avoidance.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-Not only are WLJ’s methods transparent, his intelligence is laughable.
But I will give him credit for his ability to suck gullible people into his little game. I take pride in the fact I’m not one of them.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What are you trying to say, Sugarfoot?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot requests that I ask a party on these boards to provide “hard” evidence. I have learned not to engage in such futile attempts from the gentleman as “he has spoken.” One thing I found quite interesting was that, in one of his prior posts he quoted a statement from Josef Goebbels about propaganda. Yet, when I look at his constant repetition of simplistic lines in his posts, what I all too often see is that he is a great practioner of that “art”.
Rest assured that he really “believes” what he states in his posts. Unfortunately there is seldom if ever anything to back it up, which explains, when confronted with logic or hard facts, he attempts to change the subject to something which may not even have the remotest connection to the subject at hand. That may be indicative of one operating more on an emotional, rather than a reasonable or rational plane.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott-What I’m saying is that if the more intelligent contributors to this forum, so graciously provided by the Daily Sentinel for fun and profit, want to elevate the level of discussion, they will ignore WLJ and refuse to participate in his little games. Without a responsive audience, WLJ cannot function and will eventually drift off into cyberspace.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 6:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
(You may have missed the smiley in my post)
I hear you. I just have a hard time allowing inaccuracies like the ones Willis spouts go uncorrected if it’s a subject I’m familiar with. I think there is a positive aspect in engaging a subpontibian in that those reading but not participating can see for themselves the weakness of his position and unwillingness to accept new information. Willis may not learn, but others will.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bob, according to this ‘interpretation’ of the ‘religious test’;
” Perhaps the lady would care to consider that, if she chooses to bring her religious convictions into state matters, then the state has every right to determine what is taught in her church and how she can worship. ”
obammer is in deep doodoo.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis are you quoting Obama or just pretending to? Source?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger, you asked for the source.
You could scroll up a few posts to Bobs post that I quoted.
naw, too much trouble for you to go to.
Here’s the whole thing. Post #10
” RLaitres
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm PM This User Report this comment
Sue, I am much afraid, is taking the position stated in a Daily Sentinel article from several years ago. It was that “rights” are “abstract notions.” They are not, not if one desires to keep one’s own “rights.” While not physical, they are real nonetheless. Perhaps the lady would care to consider that, if she chooses to bring her religious convictions into state matters, then the state has every right to determine what is taught in her church and how she can worship. The danger represented by opening that door of theocracy is not a “one way.” So, unless she is prepared to accept the consequences, of the state interfering into her religion, she would do well to make quite certain that it stays, not only closed, but bolted and barricaded.”
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So Willis, you were not quoting “obammer.” Just trying to make it look like you were.
You of all people have no right getting huffy being asked for a source. You ask that of others all the time.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
P.S. RLaitre’s statement in context makes perfect sense. I am sorry I missed it before because it really is a good point.
No I haven’t read every comment in every letter in this debate. I decided to read Harry Potter 7 over the weekend instead (965 pages) and was just not up for doubling that.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” ashhugger
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am PM This User Report this comment
So Willis, you were not quoting “obammer.” Just trying to make it look like you were.
You of all people have no right getting huffy being asked for a source. You ask that of others all the time. ”
You, of all people, have no right to get huffy because you FAILED to read previous posts.
Be very careful when climbing down from yoour hihg horse.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The position of the pro atheists seems to be that anybody that doesn’t want to hear things they disagree with, shouldn’t have to hear it because they find it offensive.
So, why do I keep having to listen to the unending screeching from the evolutionists?
It is faith based.
It is a religion.
And it is government established.
It is taught in schools as fact.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever … PLUS an eye roll.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tin-foil hats, anyone?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.