Posted 3 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
Anne Landman’s Aug. 10 commentary claims that The Daily Sentinel and others “feel they must oppose us because they think we are evil people who are trying to take their prayer away from them.” I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do not fear that Ms. Landman, or any atheist, can take prayer away. They have no such ability, power or right under the laws of the land.
However, two other matters are of concern. First, I am bothered by the inconsistency in her approach to this debate. It is apparently of paramount importance that she not feel “excluded” or “uncomfortable,” but whether others may feel that way as a result of her actions is apparently unimportant. Perhaps we should agree that any group’s “comfort” is not the proper standard by which we measure the actions of any government body.
Second, I reject the broad brush she uses to make her point. There is a difference between public prayer (which is constitutional) and government-mandated prayer (which is not), but that important distinction seems to be lost on too many people in this dialogue. Regardless of our opinion, we should keep that distinction in mind when we study the Constitution and search for the intent of the founding fathers.
Public officials are people on whom we rely to make important decisions that affect all of our lives. We ought to recognize that, when we elect them, we ask them to bring every talent and every belief with them when they come together to make those decisions. A public prayer that helps our elected officials set the tone at a public meeting is no more a move toward the establishment of religion than their reliance on their experiences as a parent is a move toward government-mandated marriage.
BRAD WRIGHT
Grand Junction
30 Responses to “Landman’s argument is inconsistent”
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am glad that someone thinks the atheists are not trying to take prayer away. You wouldn’t know it from the blogs!
The atheists feel that NO ONE should be uncomfortable in a public meeting. I should feel compelled to “leave the room” if I don’t agree with the prayer. I shouldn’t have to leave a public meeting for any reason except my own. I can’t see why a moment of silence wasn’t adopted. It serves everyone’s purpose whether that be to get centered, say a prayer, or simply clear their head in preparation for getting to the people’s business.
“Public prayer” is Constitutional only when it is non-sectarian (court case after court case have determined this). The new City Council policy may allow for sectarian prayer. Several Council members have expressed their view that the invocation provider should be able to pray any way they want to. Anyone who asks to give a prayer will be given guidelines written by the City attorney-if requested. (I think it should be mandatory.) So, we don’t know exactly what the City is going to allow. If they allow sectarian prayers, they expose themselves to litigation.
Saying a prayer does not guarantee smart decisions by the Council. Therefore it doesn’t matter if they believe in god or not or if they pray or not. I want my elected officials to use reason, logic, and rationality to make decisions. I want them to be guided by their brains and experience, not the word of god. I also expect them to be knowledgeable about the law. The First Amendment language about “establishing” a religion has been interpreted (by the courts) to mean advancing, advocating or promoting religion. Nearly exclusive Christian prayer takes on the appearance of promoting a religion.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The original letter writer is correct. No one can take away prayer. What they are trying to take away is the free exercise of religion, guaranteed by the Constitution. Their position is that if you are a public official, you must pass their religious test. That is to say, you must relinquish your individual right to pray when and where you choose if you are to be allowed to hold public office. And they use the threat of litigation to achieve their goal. Can anyone doubt that theirs is an ongoing agenda? First it was the public display of the Ten Commandments that made them uncomfortable, and that was just on public property, that was not in a public meeting. Then it was “In God We Trust” on our currency that they found offensive and made them uncomfortable. Then it was the words “One Nation Under God” that made them uncomfortable, offended and isolated them. Then it was the City Council’s invocation that offended, isolated, made them uncomfortable, and precipitated their demands to remove it. And now, just this morning, their attorney, Mr. Hugenberg, presented their new target, the Mesa County Commission with his arguments that they must end their historic invocations. The atheists threats of litigation amount to nothing more than coercion. The message is, there are certain words that you must not say if you are a public official. Words like our Lord Jesus Christ. Soon more names will be added to that list, and soon more public places will be outlawed to prayer. And soon there will be an atheist demand for criminal penalties to be prescribed for anyone who breaks their rules. Make no mistake, what they are attempting to do is outlaw the free of religion, one word and place at a time. And anyone who has been paying attention to their ever expanding agenda and to the words spoken by the atheists themselves on this forum, should realize they intend to do by any means necessary. The courage of a few of our elected officials and our support of them is all that stands between the atheists and their goal.
God Bless America and Protect Her.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We will have to keep saying it until we are hoarse, apparently. no one wants to take away anyone’s right to pray. If a government official needs to pray aloud to “Our Lord Jesus Christ” before a meeting, constantly one single deity in an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY it is a violation of the Establishment clause, period.
At no other time in their is a government official or anyone else not “allowed” to pray. No one gives a hoot what they do outside of the official meetings.
I have never met anyone who needs to pray out loud to their deity every waking minute. Are our elected officials such anomolies that they must do so, even when it is not appropriate? Do they pray out loud in their sleep, and while they are brushing their teeth (mumble, mumble) … and doing other bathroom duties? And before they meet with their kids’ teachers, do they make the teacher join them in worshipping Jesus in order to make sure the meeting goes well? Do they pray before asking their dog to sit, so that the dog has a better chance of sitting? Etc …
Just wondering.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, while I agree that you are not trying to take away anyone’s right to pray, I disagree that others are not.
And yes, I do pray every waking minute, not out loud every waking minute, but every waking minute, nevertheless.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Sue. Though agnostic, I do pray in my own way, often several times a day, rarely aloud but often silently. So I do understand.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
P.S.
Sue, of course we can agree to disagree if you think some people are trying to take away other people’s prayer rights, but I am curious why you think so?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue: Ash, while I agree that you are not trying to take away anyone’s right to pray, I disagree that others are not.
And who might that be, Sue?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course we can agree to disagree, too bad others aren’t so easily convinced to do so!
In answer to your question… one example that comes to mind are the many others on this board who have repeatedly stated “Christians, go into your closets to pray”. If that isn’t an example of an attempt to stop prayer, I don’t know what is.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, class, no finger pointing or “pissing” contests today, you’ll have to find someone else to play with.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Sue “… one example that comes to mind are the many others on this board who have repeatedly stated “Christians, go into your closets to pray”…”
Bad behavior indeed; though I am certain that the INTENT was not to keep anyone from praying, I can see how the case might be made.
The greatest philosophers have tied themselves in knots contemplating whether the intention or the actual behavior is what matters.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Wright, some of us believe to be wrong, and for several reasons. An individual’s behavior, when alone or in his/her own home. But, walking out of those conditions, whether it be into another persons home, or in a public place, puts restrictions upon what they may or may not do. Therefore what is appropriate in one environment, is not in another, and that is what must be remembered by everyone.
I might ask Mr. Wright, as well as others, to answer, being totally honest,and giving serious consideration to the following questions prior to answering: What if the City Council or any civic body ‘chose’ to begin their meetings with an incantation to Allah? Or, what if some American Indian tribe, those who choose to smoke special herbs as part of their religion, opened such meetings with smoking such materials? Would Mr. Wright be prepared to tolerate and be completely ‘comfortable’ in such an environment? Would he support it, or would he oppose it, and upon what grounds(either way)?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Or, put another way.
If Mr. Liartes started each of his posts with a 2500 word tome, how many would be made to feel uncomfortable with the endless monotone rolling through their eardrums to vibrate ceaselessly inside the brain cells left alive?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
“In answer to your question… one example that comes to mind are the many others on this board who have repeatedly stated “Christians, go into your closets to pray”. If that isn’t an example of an attempt to stop prayer, I don’t know what is.”
How is telling someone to go to a specific location to pray an attempt to stop prayer? Seriously. I don’t understand the logic here. I have yet to see anyone, here on this board or anywhere else for that matter, say that Christians should stop praying altogether. A small limitation on where certain types of prayers can be said is not a demand for all prayers to stop.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why is it alright to tell the Christians to go hide in a closet to pray, but not alright to ask the atheists to show a little courtesy and respect while others in the community freely exercise their Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Because, Willis, an elected official, while acting in the capacity for which he or she was elected (i.e. as a representative of the government) must comply with the limitations placed on the government by the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Any other time that person is free to exercise all the rights that any other citizen has.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a sectarian prayer in a government setting is unconstitutional. The Grand Junction City Council has agreed with this ruling. If you don’t, then your problem is with the GJCC and the SCOTUS.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Atheists claim that the mention of Jesus is breaking the Establishment Clause.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with this clause, here it is;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
What is a law? A law has penalties. What penalties have been imposed or prescribed by the City Council or the County Commissioners for failure to participate, recognize or ignore an invocation? Has anyone out there ever heard of a law that has ever been made where there is no penalty for failure to comply? Where is this law that the atheists claim exists? What code book, city or county ordinance holds the written version of this law? If the city council or the county commissioners or any member thereof should choose to wish the Denver Broncos good luck in an upcoming game, could it be said, should it be said, that they are establishing a law respecting the Broncos? They might be respecting the Broncos, but they are certainly not making a law. Would they be requiring all Forty-Niner fans to join with them in wishing the Broncos good luck. Of course not. Neither would they expect them to. All of the allegations that the atheists make are based upon interpretation. Who’s interpretation makes all the difference. And interpretation is subject to change, whether it be by the individual or by a court, because courts are subject to change. You will all recall the hullabaloo when a replacement Supreme Court Justice goes before Congress for confirmation. That is because some are conservative while others are liberal. Some hold this position, others another. Now the atheists will happily cite Supreme Court decisions that support their interpretation, but the fact of the matter is under our system of Government each case must be decided individually. There is no Supreme Court decision that can unilaterally declare a person or persons guilty of breaking the law without due process, and that means a trial. There has been no trial involving the Grand Junction City Council invocation policy. There has only been an accommodation forged under threat of lawsuit against the individual members of the council. And now the same threat is being applied to the individual members of the county commission. This is nothing more than the politics of appeasement and the application of the domino theory. And if it continues to be successful, the atheists will have succeeded in establishing a religious test by demanding that any individual who wishes to hold public office must relinquish their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion. What does free mean? Doesn’t it mean without restriction? And aren’t the atheists trying to place restrictions? What words can and can not be said? And where these words can and can not be said? Is the word Jesus endangering anyone? Is it now to be seen the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre? That is unlawful because it does endanger people. Is this the basis of the atheists interpretation/demand? I will leave it to the common sense of the American people to form their own interpretation and opinions because that also is their right, and their duty. Speak out for truth.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No scott, my problem is with people that feel the need to pretend they are smarter than they really are.
Now, as to your Constitutional background.
Have you made any effort to read the body of the Constitution yet, or are you still trying to fly with what you have been told by people willing to fill yer pointy little head with non-facts?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres… I’ll answer and for me, it doesn’t require much serious consideration in order to be truly honest.
I may not be “comfortable” in either of your examples, nor would I be offended or disrespectful. I don’t have to believe as they do to sit quietly. I don’t expect the entire world to revolve around my likes or dislikes.
The City Council has made it clear that the new policy will be to welcome invocations from those who go through the selection process. They have made their decision and I support their right to make that decision.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P - You are sorely amiss on your interpretation of the law and, more specifically on the doctrine of Stari Decisis. This BS about needing a trial is just plain wrong - and you know it. The word of Jesus is just that - someone’s word (or just what others, many years later, said it was). Go back and repeat American Civics, you missed something. It would also help if you were to form paragraphs in your posts instead of run-on sentences and disjointed juxtaposition.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah AP, get it together.
If one person has been convicted of murder, nobody else gets a trial. They’re just automatically guilty because they already had one decision of guilt.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hmmm… Willis, not a bad idea. Imagine the tax savings by us overtaxed taxpayers… we could save a ton of money, maybe pay off the deficit in one year!
And yes, I am being flip.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I wuzn’t…
I wuz being sarcastic.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I know, dear boy
I was, too… and probably shouldn’t be.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DABookie,
I think what you missed was the purpose of law. To provide justice. That is why the law does not recognize agreements made under duress. You may have convinced the city council that it was in their own best interest to reach an out of court settlement, but that in no way proves them guilty of any violation. That assertion is nothing more or less than an attempt to effect the next domino.
If your legal theory was as good as you think it is, then a court of law could settle the matter without the continued threats to sue elected officials individually. And I believe that it is the doubt about the outcome that prevents the atheists from seeking a court decision. Why would they want to when their coercion is working so well?
Thank you for your critique on my writing. But what does that have to do with the issue?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Atheists claim that the mention of Jesus is breaking the Establishment Clause.”
No, they claim that praying to a specific deity such as Jesus Christ in a government sponsored invocation is violating the Establishment Clause. You left out a few key details.
“For those of you who are unfamiliar with this clause, here it is;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….””
Yes.
“What is a law? A law has penalties. What penalties have been imposed or prescribed by the City Council or the County Commissioners for failure to participate, recognize or ignore an invocation? Has anyone out there ever heard of a law that has ever been made where there is no penalty for failure to comply? Where is this law that the atheists claim exists? What code book, city or county ordinance holds the written version of this law?”
Strawman. The Supreme Court has long since decided that sectarian prayer in government settings violates the Establishment Clause. There doesn’t have to be a specific law. You don’t like this, take it up with the Supreme Court. The atheists are simply requesting that the council follow the guidelines currently in effect.
“If the city council or the county commissioners or any member thereof should choose to wish the Denver Broncos good luck in an upcoming game, could it be said, should it be said, that they are establishing a law respecting the Broncos? They might be respecting the Broncos, but they are certainly not making a law. Would they be requiring all Forty-Niner fans to join with them in wishing the Broncos good luck. Of course not. Neither would they expect them to.”
Strawman. The Broncos are not a religion, and thus do not fall under the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
“All of the allegations that the atheists make are based upon interpretation. Who’s interpretation makes all the difference.”
We’re using the US Supreme Court’s interpretation. Who’s are you using?
“And interpretation is subject to change, whether it be by the individual or by a court, because courts are subject to change.
Great. When the Supreme Court makes a new ruling, you can have your sectarian prayers. Until then, live with it.
“You will all recall the hullabaloo when a replacement Supreme Court Justice goes before Congress for confirmation. That is because some are conservative while others are liberal. Some hold this position, others another.”
No argument here.
“Now the atheists will happily cite Supreme Court decisions that support their interpretation,”
Which is all of them at this point. I notice you haven’t cited a single case in favor of your argument.
“…but the fact of the matter is under our system of Government each case must be decided individually.”
You never took civics, did you? Can you imagine the caseload on the court system if every case had to be decided each time the issue came up in every district? The system doesn’t work the way you think it does.
“There is no Supreme Court decision that can unilaterally declare a person or persons guilty of breaking the law without due process, and that means a trial.”
No one is being declared guilty. This is not a criminal case. The actions of the city council have been agreed to be in violation of existing guidelines established by legal precedents. The only was this would go to trial is if there was a disagreement over this point. There isn’t. Like it or not, the city council has agreed with the atheists. No disagreement, no trial. Perhaps you should sue the city to get the sectarian prayers reinstated?
“There has been no trial involving the Grand Junction City Council invocation policy. There has only been an accommodation forged under threat of lawsuit against the individual members of the council.”
Then your problem is with the city council.
“And now the same threat is being applied to the individual members of the county commission. This is nothing more than the politics of appeasement and the application of the domino theory. And if it continues to be successful, the atheists will have succeeded in establishing a religious test by demanding that any individual who wishes to hold public office must relinquish their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion.”
That is already a requirement of holding office. The atheists are simply asking for it to be enforced.
“What does free mean? Doesn’t it mean without restriction? And aren’t the atheists trying to place restrictions?
This is a free country. Does that mean there are no laws?
“What words can and can not be said? And where these words can and can not be said?”
See the Marsh, 1983 ruling for the specific example of government invocations.
“Is the word Jesus endangering anyone?”
The Establishment Clause says nothing about a requirement for endangerment. Strawman.
“Is it now to be seen the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre? That is unlawful because it does endanger people. Is this the basis of the atheists interpretation/demand?”
No, it isn’t. Therefore your point collapses.
“I will leave it to the common sense of the American people to form their own interpretation and opinions because that also is their right, and their duty. Speak out for truth.”
The atheists did, and the city council agreed with them.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
By the way, AP… this life long 49er fan would be very whiny if they were to wish the Denver Donkeys good luck!
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, class, no finger pointing or “pissing” contests today, you’ll have to find someone else to play with.
It was a very simple question with nothing else implied. “And who might that be Sue?” How do you get finger pointing or a pissing contest out of that?
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
The atheists can claim whatever they want. They just can’t show that the city council is making a law, by praying to Jesus. If they are making such a law, wouldn’t they do it the same as they do all other laws and ordinances, by writing it down, and making penalties for violation?
We can all read the Establishment Clause and we are all entitled to our interpretation, and you can make an allegation that the city council violated that clause, but you cannot say that their violation is a proven fact. Your one size fits all justice, guilty without a hearing proclamation is nothing more than an atheist rant.
If your claim is to adhere to the written Constitution, and not some vague interpretation, the requirement would be that the city council would have to make a law respecting establishment of religion and there is no law. You are trying to convict them of respecting religion, not making a law respecting religion. One is voluntary, the latter is mandatory. It is the difference between may and shall. The “free exercise thereof” clause gives them the right to respect religion and in the absence of them making a mandatory law, that is all they are doing, respecting religion. It is making the law that is prohibited. Show me the law they have made, instead of pronouncing them guilty by interpretation or a hearing on some other case, or by agreement? It is about due process. And without that I am afraid your guilty verdict just doesn’t hold water. There are no shortcuts to justice for the people. And that is why the public is weighing in against the agreement. They recognize that it is an injustice. And they feel cheated.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The above disjointed and ranbling effort by AP is nothing more than his assertion that he is not going to accept the rulings of the Supreme Court unless they agree with his position. Very unamerican and very unpatriotic. He needs a new screen handle.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“The atheists can claim whatever they want. They just can’t show that the city council is making a law, by praying to Jesus.”
And they aren’t trying to show that. They did show that the city council was sponsoring a sectarian prayer and according to the US Supreme Court, which is binding here in Grand Junction, government sponsored sectarian prayer is in violation of the Establishment Clause. You want a court case, it was Marsh, 1983.
“If they are making such a law, wouldn’t they do it the same as they do all other laws and ordinances, by writing it down, and making penalties for violation?”
Strawman. The Supreme Court has ruled that “making a law” does not have to be literally making a law. If a government entity favors one religion over another, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause. Wouldn’t you say that 90% Christian prayers is favoring one religion?
“We can all read the Establishment Clause and we are all entitled to our interpretation, and you can make an allegation that the city council violated that clause, but you cannot say that their violation is a proven fact.”
Irrelevant. The city council apparently thought it was a foregone conclusion, otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed.
“Your one size fits all justice, guilty without a hearing proclamation is nothing more than an atheist rant.”
It’s not about guilt or innocence. It’s about actions being lawful or not. No one is being held responsible or penalized. It is not a criminal case. It is a civil dispute. Although, since both parties agreed, it really isn’t a dispute either.
“If your claim is to adhere to the written Constitution, and not some vague interpretation, the requirement would be that the city council would have to make a law respecting establishment of religion and there is no law.”
No, the claim is to adhere to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. You seem to keep omitting that part.
“You are trying to convict them of respecting religion, not making a law respecting religion. One is voluntary, the latter is mandatory.”
And yet there is not difference in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
“It is the difference between may and shall. The “free exercise thereof” clause gives them the right to respect religion and in the absence of them making a mandatory law, that is all they are doing, respecting religion.”
And not respecting those who aren’t Christian. But I guess that’s okay if you’re a Christian. Too bad for the minorities.
“It is making the law that is prohibited. Show me the law they have made, instead of pronouncing them guilty by interpretation or a hearing on some other case, or by agreement?”
Again, no actual law is required, according to the Supreme Court.
“It is about due process. And without that I am afraid your guilty verdict just doesn’t hold water.”
Tell that to the Grand Junction City Council. They don’t agree with you either.
“There are no shortcuts to justice for the people. And that is why the public is weighing in against the agreement. They recognize that it is an injustice. And they feel cheated.”
Good thing the Bill of Rights aren’t operated by majority rules, isn’t it?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.