Separation of Church and Government Meetings.

I know this is the trend but I think it wrong. I think we should be fighting for no religion in our government not every religion. It’s not that I don’t see the point of any voice over no voice but I feel it’s a capitulation that will never go on from here. More and more we are seeing courts ignoring the separation of church and state for “thou shall accept humanists and atheists”. Inclusion is not the same as separation.
White washing the Constitution, IMO. No invocation is necessary to do government business. No special governance for the religious. I think this will end, if not badly, then at an ineffective draw. Only time will tell, I suppose, but I am not convinced of this path.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/08/02/supreme-court-affirmation-of-public-prayer-gives-all-an-opportunity-to-share/13537023/
What say you on the subject of secular invocation. Who will they invoke?
MzLee

I think you can invoke reason and open-mindedness and even hope. But I agree, leave it out entirely. Have a moment of actual reflection, ring a bell or something, no words.
Really, you’re allowing a couple minutes of unstructured time for one person, no rebuttal, in a place that is all about structuring the debate and providing rules for who gets to say what. It’s just wrong.

I think that the process of allowing all varieties, the broader the better, to give the invocation is likely to annoy the religious, who really “do not” want equality for all religions. Ultimately, they will decide to have no invocation rather than having to listen to the heretical prayers of the damned. Prayer is not prayer if you cant have it your way. The broader the variety of invocations offered, the sooner the “invocation” will go away altogether.
Besides, current interpretation of the constitution, which is always evolving, would not allow for purposefully excluding religious expressions of any kind flat out. That is for a more progressive future that, at this point is only a dream. I really hope for a time when expressing any religious dogma or belief will be considered very poor manners. Religion, if you want it, should be entirely private, and trying to promote your religion publicly would be the gravest of sins. Religions would have no influence or dare presume they should have influence. Religion should be a “Mind your own damn business” topic with people you don’t know.

I liked the days when government left it to “providence” and called it good.

I agree with MZL. The phrase often used is separation of church and state. Religious statements have no place in government meetings.
Possibly every humanist and atheist group should individually apply to present the invocations. It would be somewhat like what happened in Santa Monica. They have a narrow long park running along the palisades at the west side of the city, above the ocean. Every year in the weeks before christmas they would have eleven religious displays set up. An atheist group complained so the spots were opened up to allow them to apply. They and humanist groups did so before the churches were even aware of what was happening. The nontheists got ten of the eleven spots. Some were left empty and some had atheist or humanist signs. I believe it was shortly after that the city council voted to end the practice of having christmas displays there.
Occam

FFRF has a contest. They prefer that you get into a government meeting of some kind and do the invocation and get on video. Submit it and you could win a trip to the national convention.

I think that the process of allowing all varieties, the broader the better, to give the invocation is likely to annoy the religious, who really "do not" want equality for all religions. Ultimately, they will decide to have no invocation rather than having to listen to the heretical prayers of the damned. Prayer is not prayer if you cant have it your way. The broader the variety of invocations offered, the sooner the "invocation" will go away altogether. Besides, current interpretation of the constitution, which is always evolving, would not allow for purposefully excluding religious expressions of any kind flat out. That is for a more progressive future that, at this point is only a dream. I really hope for a time when expressing any religious dogma or belief will be considered very poor manners. Religion, if you want it, should be entirely private, and trying to promote your religion publicly would be the gravest of sins. Religions would have no influence or dare presume they should have influence. Religion should be a "Mind your own damn business" topic with people you don't know.
You nailed it. And the same for teaching Creation and Intelligent Design, prayer in school, etc. Instead of fighting against it, we should fight FOR it AND for INCLUSION of every view, not just one. Once you let them all have a voice, since that's exactly what the Creationists do not want, they'll pack up and go home.
I agree with MZL. The phrase often used is separation of church and state. Religious statements have no place in government meetings. Possibly every humanist and atheist group should individually apply to present the invocations. It would be somewhat like what happened in Santa Monica. They have a narrow long park running along the palisades at the west side of the city, above the ocean. Every year in the weeks before christmas they would have eleven religious displays set up. An atheist group complained so the spots were opened up to allow them to apply. They and humanist groups did so before the churches were even aware of what was happening. The nontheists got ten of the eleven spots. Some were left empty and some had atheist or humanist signs. I believe it was shortly after that the city council voted to end the practice of having christmas displays there. Occam
Perfect. I love the holidays and all the lights but I love them on private property not my government. (To be honest I loath the "Jesus Is The Reason For The Season" signs. Blech! and wrong!) I just want my government to do the business only. MzLee
I think that the process of allowing all varieties, the broader the better, to give the invocation is likely to annoy the religious, who really "do not" want equality for all religions. Ultimately, they will decide to have no invocation rather than having to listen to the heretical prayers of the damned. Prayer is not prayer if you cant have it your way. The broader the variety of invocations offered, the sooner the "invocation" will go away altogether. Besides, current interpretation of the constitution, which is always evolving, would not allow for purposefully excluding religious expressions of any kind flat out. That is for a more progressive future that, at this point is only a dream. I really hope for a time when expressing any religious dogma or belief will be considered very poor manners. Religion, if you want it, should be entirely private, and trying to promote your religion publicly would be the gravest of sins. Religions would have no influence or dare presume they should have influence. Religion should be a "Mind your own damn business" topic with people you don't know.
Interestingly, most Christian organizations that lobby and tend to make it their sole business to insert themselves in politics often inaccurately name themselves and most of their topics "religious freedom" items or other similar terminology as if they're really going to advocate on behalf of a non-Christian religion to have rights (only religion they ever reference is Christianity).

Although they often cheat, if a church makes political remarks that indicate any bias toward or against a given politician or law, they are subject to having the IRS revoke their tax free status. Possibly we should do the reverse: If any government meeting starts with or uses a religious invocation they should be liable for the IRS to revoke their funding and collect a fair amount of what they have in their treasury. :lol:
Occam

I know this is the trend but I think it wrong. I think we should be fighting for no religion in our government not every religion. It's not that I don't see the point of any voice over no voice but I feel it's a capitulation that will never go on from here. More and more we are seeing courts ignoring the separation of church and state for "thou shall accept humanists and atheists". Inclusion is not the same as separation. White washing the Constitution, IMO. No invocation is necessary to do government business. No special governance for the religious. I think this will end, if not badly, then at an ineffective draw. Only time will tell, I suppose, but I am not convinced of this path. http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/08/02/supreme-court-affirmation-of-public-prayer-gives-all-an-opportunity-to-share/13537023/ What say you on the subject of secular invocation. Who will they invoke? MzLee
That's always been my question. But, anyway, we're unlikely to get religion out of government business, so, if we can't beat 'em we'll have to join 'em. Otherwise we have no say at all. Lois
I know this is the trend but I think it wrong. I think we should be fighting for no religion in our government not every religion. It's not that I don't see the point of any voice over no voice but I feel it's a capitulation that will never go on from here. More and more we are seeing courts ignoring the separation of church and state for "thou shall accept humanists and atheists". Inclusion is not the same as separation. White washing the Constitution, IMO. No invocation is necessary to do government business. No special governance for the religious. I think this will end, if not badly, then at an ineffective draw. Only time will tell, I suppose, but I am not convinced of this path. http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/08/02/supreme-court-affirmation-of-public-prayer-gives-all-an-opportunity-to-share/13537023/ What say you on the subject of secular invocation. Who will they invoke? MzLee
Just because religion is bad, don't mean the government can't be worst. Religions have always been part of government, except in old Russia, but look at Russia today. It's like Russia learned it's lesson. We need to control the power of religions just like we need to learn to control the power of the government.
Just because religion is bad, don’t mean the government can’t be worst. Religions have always been part of government, except in old Russia, but look at Russia today. It’s like Russia learned it’s lesson. We need to control the power of religions just like we need to learn to control the power of the government.
Religion has always been a part of Russia since St. Cyril brought it to the Slavs. It wasn't until Czar Peter split with the Patriarchs in the late 1600's that the traditional power of the Orthodox Church was curtailed and he separated the State from the Church. It still played a major part until the rise of the Bolsheviks after the November Revolution. Even then the Communists gave it tacit approval under Lenin and Stalin. Cap't Jack
Just because religion is bad, don’t mean the government can’t be worst. Religions have always been part of government, except in old Russia, but look at Russia today. It’s like Russia learned it’s lesson. We need to control the power of religions just like we need to learn to control the power of the government.
Religion has always been a part of Russia since St. Cyril brought it to the Slavs. It wasn't until Czar Peter split with the Patriarchs in the late 1600's that the traditional power of the Orthodox Church was curtailed and he separated the State from the Church. It still played a major part until the rise of the Bolsheviks after the November Revolution. Even then the Communists gave it tacit approval under Lenin and Stalin. Cap't Jack
You’re right. But I always felt that for all practical reasons the power of the Russian Church was held in check until the break-up and then rapidly expanded. In the Ukraine battle today, to the Russians, Russia is seen as the Christian nation, not the United States. Big different, and the 3 networks do not comment on this. I found this very interesting, I Google around the different areas of Russia. Eastern Ukraine was like our Midwest towns with power lines, railroads, billboards and grain silos. But Russia was a different story, almost no farms, the tractors were at the houses in town, the fields were not square and they followed the contour of the land. Every town had one big building, the church. Also a lot of small gardens, even the schools had gardens.