Open meetings with a prayer?

[metis]

We should remember that anyone here can pray silently during an entire city council meeting if they'd like. Also, they could assemble with a group of peers and pray on the steps of city hall before, during, or after a meeting, if they'd like. One can pretty much pray at any time and in any location, so the real issue is not prayer.

A city council meeting is what is legally called a "captive audience" thus, in this case, since we're talking about a political meeting, where's the "respect" of forcing prayer on a "captive audience" that is not there for religious reasons? That's not respect-- that's disrespect.

If one feels a need to pray, then go ahead and pray, but please don't force this on people who are not there for the purposes of prayer or religion.

 

[Marisa]

I think its a testament to the power of prayer that non religious people are so against it. If they really believed prayer was powerless, why would sitting through a one minute prayer be such a big deal. However the prayer should be open to other religions, but that should be proportionate to their representation in the populace. And from time to time an atheist can lead a non prayer, its inclusion, not seperation.

I'll give you my perspective. While governor of Texas, as much of the state was experiencing a record drought and massive forest fires, Rick Perry decided the best thing to do was head to Houston for a prayer rally. I expect more from the people entrusted to handle the people's business. I expect them to deal with the issues at hand, not plead to deities no one can prove are listening for intervention. I know it's more convenient to your world view to snicker about us big nasty atheists being afraid of prayer, but I can assure you that's not the case.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'll give you my perspective. While governor of Texas, as much of the state was experiencing a record drought and massive forest fires, Rick Perry decided the best thing to do was head to Houston for a prayer rally. I expect more from the people entrusted to handle the people's business. I expect them to deal with the issues at hand, not plead to deities no one can prove are listening for intervention. I know it's more convenient to your world view to snicker about us big nasty atheists being afraid of prayer, but I can assure you that's not the case.

I am from Texas and I remember that crap too. I was especially angry at the church he went to, and imagining them praying, knowing that the cameras were on them. What a crock of hypocritical nonsense. How could a religious person let themselves get played like that. . . for votes?

 

[Quintessence]

Banishing the idea entirely from law-making is neutrality. It's the state saying it will not legislate one way or the other regarding religion and that it will leave religious practise up to private citizens. The state is no longer neutral on religion when it actively creates legislation based on one or more religious doctrines (e.g. enforcing dietary restrictions like in India), or begins outlawing religious observance by private citizens. China is a good example of this - their Communist Party recently declared that all party members must be atheists. That's not neutrality - that's taking an active stance against religion. If the CCP were neutral then they wouldn't bother making rules stating members had to be Christian/atheist/Buddhist etc.

I'm getting the impression that you and I are viewing this matter entirely differently, because an invocation isn't legislating anything. The sorts of scenarios you mention here are very different than this one, so they're not comparable.

A law, however, that banishes opening invocation is legislating something, and in a way that is definitely not neutral. Banishing something is not neutral; it's a decidedly anti- stance. Which is sad, because it really is not that hard to allow anyone, theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, to deliver a one minute opening invocation for legislative sessions. Does one need invocations at all? Of course not. But to me, banishing it sends a message of intolerance and lack of support for pluralism and inclusivity.

There is no religion of secularism no matter how much religious people want there to be one.

*facepalm*

You know, I just got done saying in this post here that there's a $#@%ing reason why I put the word religion in quotes. Good grief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

=

*facepalm*

You know, I just got done saying in this post here that there's a $#@%ing reason why I put the word religion in quotes. Good grief.

Refer to post #56.

 

[Quintessence]

Refer to post #56.

Fair enough. My apologies. I'm a little tired after doing some rather intense physical labor this morning. All I want to do right now is go home, take a shower, and take a really long nap.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Which is sad, because it really is not that hard to allow anyone, theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, to deliver a one minute opening invocation for legislative sessions. Does one need invocations at all? Of course not. But to me, banishing it sends a message of intolerance and lack of support for pluralism and inclusivity.

You keep bringing up pluralism and inclusivity.... but I ask you, by ending the practice of having an invocation at the beginning of municipal council meetings, who is being excluded? You yourself state that the invocation isn't necessary. So why drag along those who would rather not have it into it? Why bother, even for one minute, turning a municipal council meeting into a house of worship?

People who wish to pray before work aren't stopped from doing so. They can go to church before work, pray at home, in the car, perhaps even utter a personal prayer just before walking in the door, or just after taking their seat without involving anyone else. I don't walk into your church to start the day off with a Jewish invocation. I don't walk into your home so that your family can join me in saying grace before a meal in Hebrew. Why then must you insist on Jewish council members being asked to either sit quietly or wait outside so that the Catholic council members can have a minute or two of church time in the municipal council? In a place where the goal is solidarity, unity, etc... Why invoke, for the sake of guidance and/or blessing, a being that some in the room entirely reject? Why should an atheist be subject to having a Muslim invoke Allah on behalf of the council? Why should a Christian be subject to having a Satanist invoke Satan on behalf of the council? Why should a Jew be subject to having a Christian invoke Jesus on behalf of the council?

Why don't you see that it's all a lot simpler and less alienating to just allow municipal council meetings to begin with the business of the day?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm getting the impression that you and I are viewing this matter entirely differently, because an invocation isn't legislating anything. The sorts of scenarios you mention here are very different than this one, so they're not comparable.

Indeed we are. Let me explain: Having prayers in government meetings and legislations based upon morality are symptoms of the same problem - entwining religion with the state. I'm not saying legislation and prayers in council meetings are the same thing.

A law, however, that banishes opening invocation is legislating something, and in a way that is definitely not neutral. Banishing something is not neutral; it's a decidedly anti- stance. Which is sad, because it really is not that hard to allow anyone, theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, to deliver a one minute opening invocation for legislative sessions. Does one need invocations at all? Of course not. But to me, banishing it sends a message of intolerance and lack of support for pluralism and inclusivity.

It's stating that there will be no possibility for one religion to gain preferential treatment over others because the situation will not arise. It places all beliefs and lack of belief on an even footing. It's a stance of not having religion entwined with governance which is what secularism is. You also aren't allowed to have sex on government property (I would assume). Does that mean there is an 'anti-sex' attitude or that sex is being banished? No! Such a rule predicates that there is an appropriate time and place for such things; and that governance isn't one of them. Unless you'd like your local officials to spend x amount of time rutting in the conference room.

 

[Quintessence]

Why don't you see that it's all a lot simpler and less alienating to just allow municipal council meetings to begin with the business of the day?

Why don't you see that we live in a multicultural society, and that the acme if honoring our fellows is to respect and honor each other's traditions instead of being all hypersensitive about it? If we're so threatened and alienated by someone else's traditions, that's a problem. And we need to get over it. It speaks of intolerance, of prejudice, and definitely not of pluralism and honoring diverse cultures and peoples. Ignoring the problem by banishing it entirely is not going to make that problem go away. You know what is really alienating? Being excluded. Being ignored. Being banished. Being silenced.

Gods forbid people learn to be more tolerant. Gods forbid!

 

[YmirGF]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer. What do you think of this ruling?

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings - Montreal - CBC News

I like this decision. I would be deeply offended if someone were to pray in my presence.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why don't you see that we live in a multicultural society, and that the acme if honoring our fellows is to respect and honor each other's traditions instead of being all hypersensitive about it? If we're so threatened and alienated by someone else's traditions, that's a problem. And we need to get over it. It speaks of intolerance, of prejudice, and definitely not of pluralism and honoring diverse cultures and peoples.

Part of honoring and respecting diverse cultures is acknowledging the fact that they are different. And that what's good for you may not be good for me. You can't give a Jew a ham sandwich and expect him to eat it. You can't expect a Muslim to participate in and say "amen" to a prayer "in Jesus' name". It's not intolerant for Jews and Muslims to not participate in a Christian service when doing so would be an actual violation of one's religious principles.

If you want to organize an interfaith gathering where people can come to experience each other's faith, you're welcome to it. But opening a legislative session isn't a religious function, and it's not the time to impose your religious preferences on those who have faiths different than yours.

"There is a season for everything, and a time for every event under heaven." Eccles 3:1

Truth. There is a time and a place for everything. Municipal council is not the place for morning prayers.

 

[Quintessence]

If you want to organize an interfaith gathering where people can come to experience each other's faith, you're welcome to it. But opening a legislative session isn't a religious function, and it's not the time to impose your religious preferences on those who have faiths different than yours.

I don't see such an invocation as declaring legislative sessions a "religious function" nor do I see it as imposing religious preference. I understand why some people perceive it that way, but IMHO, that's being a touch oversensitive. Maybe I see things this way because I dropped that chip off my shoulder years ago, and because I have a history of affiliation with groups like Unitarian Universalists, where pluralistic stuff like this is par for the course. But I cannot and do not support "secularism" that entails banishment of "religion" from the public sphere ("religion" in quotes here, because it doesn't actually banish all religion, only obvious or known displays of religion which, ironically, gives minorities like me an advantage - I could flagrantly do a religious invocation and nobody would object, because almost nobody would label it as religious).

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I don't see such an invocation as declaring legislative sessions a "religious function" nor do I see it as imposing religious preference. I understand why some people perceive it that way, but IMHO, that's being a touch oversensitive. Maybe I see things this way because I dropped that chip off my shoulder years ago, and because I have a history of affiliation with groups like Unitarian Universalists, where pluralistic stuff like this is par for the course. But I cannot and do not support "secularism" that entails banishment of "religion" from the public sphere ("religion" in quotes here, because it doesn't actually banish all religion, only obvious or known displays of religion which, ironically, gives minorities like me an advantage - I could flagrantly do a religious invocation and nobody would object, because almost nobody would label it as religious).

That's a respectful position. But do you believe that religious displays in the public square are genuine?

They're politically motivated displays meant to score points with the largest demographic.

 

[David M]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer. What do you think of this ruling?

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings - Montreal - CBC News

Public Prayer is un-biblical so I don't see why Christians would want it in the first place.

But the simple truth is that not everyone is a Christian so no government affiliated body should be seen to endorse one religion over another for the simple reason that the body is supposed to represent all of its citizens equally and without bias.

 

[Tumah]

I think what Deirdre wrote on the first page is a wonderful idea. It bears repeating.

A few moments of silence, to pray, meditate, etc…before a meeting is perfectly fine. But, to recite a prayer before a meeting? That is wrong in my eyes. Not everyone who is religious subscribes to Christianity…who could be in attendance. (not to mention non-believers who are in attendance)

It is a secular venue, not a church. I never liked prayers before meetings in secular venues, even when I was a Christian.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer. What do you think of this ruling?
Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings - Montreal - CBC News

Quite right too, if people want to pray they can go to church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that banishment of religions from the public sphere is not neutrality, it's endorsement of the "religion" of secularism. The solution should be to encourage religious (and irreligious) pluralism for the opening prayers or invocations, not to banish them entirely. Celebrate diversity, don't erase it.

- secularism isn't a religion.

- this ruling doesn't "banish religions from the public sphere". It only stops official prayers that are imposed on everyone. Individual council members or meeting attendees can still pray as they see fit. People can still talk about how their faith informs their views on policy issues. Councils can still issue proclamations about religion. Councillors can still go to churches and tell them publicly about how good a job they think the churches are doing. There are still many ways for councils to endorse religious pluralism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would you even do that? That's missing the point entirely; invocations before legislative sessions are supposed to be positive and affirming, they're not platforms for being a $#@%. Good grief.

I have no idea where you got the idea that invocations are supposed to be "positive and affirming", or even that they're about religious pluralism.

Many of the councils here in Ontario that still pray only use the Lord's Prayer. In Saguenay, which was the focus of this lawsuit, they used their own prayer that started with "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". From my perspective, it's more often about denial of pluralism, not encouraging pluralism.

Even in the municipalities that have a "prayer rotation", what usually happens is you get a steady stream of prayers from Christian priests and ministers with maybe a rabbi or imam once or twice a year. The message isn't "pluralism"; it's "Christianity plus tokenism".

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand why some people perceive it that way, but IMHO, that's being a touch oversensitive.

No more than those defending it, otherwise the request that "we'd rather this wasn't part of the formal meetings any more" wouldn't turn in to a court case with multiple appeals all the way up to Supreme courts. If the formal prayers weren't important to them, they'd be able to easily reach a suitable (and legal) resolution.

But I cannot and do not support "secularism" that entails banishment of "religion" from the public sphere ("religion" in quotes here, because it doesn't actually banish all religion, only obvious or known displays of religion which, ironically, gives minorities like me an advantage - I could flagrantly do a religious invocation and nobody would object, because almost nobody would label it as religious).

As you point out yourself, this isn't banishing religion at all. It's removing the formal, mandated religious element of the meeting but, as you and others have pointed out, does absolutely nothing to prevent any individuals involved performing their own religious "invocations" immediately before the meeting or, presuming it's not generally disruptive, during.

The only thing this law prevents is the formal presentation of a specific religious "invocation" as a part of the meeting. It's not hugely important in the grand scale of things but it's clearly significant symbolism to many of the people supporting it and, significantly, it is clearly in breach of established law that was put in place for very good reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A city council meeting is what is legally called a "captive audience" thus, in this case, since we're talking about a political meeting, where's the "respect" of forcing prayer on a "captive audience" that is not there for religious reasons? That's not respect-- that's disrespect.

It's also a workplace, as well as a body that often makes decisions about churches and religious people.

I've personally seen situations where the pastor from Church X gives the invocation at a meeting where Council makes a decision about something involving Church X. It creates a horrible atmosphere.

In that situation, I think it would be completely justified for a member of the public who's at the Council meeting to speak against the rezoning application for Church X's expansion to see that special influence and expect that their concerns will be ignored. I think it would also be justified for the staff planner who wrote a report recommending against the rezoning to worry that their failure to support this "favoured" applicant would have negative effects for his career.

I have many of the same concerns even when the council isn't deliberating on a church directly. For instance, when a prominent Catholic has their development approved, it can create the impression of an "old boys club" when the meeting is started with a prayer by a local priest and anyone can see all the councillors crossing themselves.

This is still a problem even when the prayers are done by a variety of denominations. You just replace giving the impression of favouring a single religion with one of favouring a small, exclusive club.