What do you think about Vice Mayor Sherman Lea’s decision to refrain from leading the city council invocation because of a complaint about referring to God's son?

I think we can pray if we want and no one who doesn;t believe in prayer or God should have the right to invade our freedom of choice- this is America.    JEN

I don't think Mr. Lea's reference to Jesus was inadvertent in light of the fact that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus. 

I thought America was about freedom of speech for everyone - even Christians.   I think it's a shame that we've come to a place in society where Christians are being censored, because being a Christian is not politically correct.  

Sherman Lea is a Christian, he was elected to city council in spite of - or possibly because of? - his faith.  If Roanoke citizens don't want a Christian to represent them, they should elect a different candidate. 

 Please do not give in!  Continue to honor your Lord in every prayer, His word tells us to be bold for him.  Every person that doesn't believe has no problem being bold.  Please do not let 1 person or a billion have such a big impact in your relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There is not a job or place of position made of man that is worth the relationship you have in Christ.  I don't understand how mmartin or anyone else can suggest that your mention of the Lord would be inadvertant.

On a certain day my Lord will come, and every person will then know that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Why is Christianity discriminated againt anyway?  I thought America was founded on Freedom of Religion!  Or was it Freedom of any Religion BUT Christianity.  Come on people, can't you tell that the end is near and that satan is fooling us, why else would so many people have such love or hate.

LiveIt...  The living word or God in you life promotes life and not death.  | What other religion does provoke that?

 I wish Mr. Lea would reconsider refraining from leading the invocation, in our  great Nation we have the right to freedoms. Whoever was offended should remember the fact that all the religions in Roanoke have the same right they can pray to whomever or whatever they believe. If the emailer wants to complain then he should speak for himself not all the religions in Roanoke or anywhere else for that matter. JD

   This is a Government meeting..I dont see why there should be a prayer at all.Roanoke City is always pushing diversity..This includes religion as well as ethinicity,sexual preferance..etc.As the ACLU head in Va. Mr Willis said..When a Council speaks..its the Government speaking.No religion should be given preference over another..How would you feel if, as a Christian,  you were forced to take part in invoking a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan  diety? By the same token citizens of these faiths have the right to not have sectarian dieties invoked in their presence. If the City is going to walk the walk and not just talk the talk of diversity, they need to keep this in mind. If Mr. Lea cannot refrain from invoking his own personal religious dieties, then he obviously cannot embrace the diversity philosophy that the City CLAIMS to follow.and should resign from City Council.

 I support Sherman Lea and think prayer is an important part of our lives.  Every one I know prays and for someone to make such a stink about it should be prayed over. 

Please, keep on praying :)

 I feel we have enough problems in the Noke besides this.  Why are we wasting our time with this.  Everyone believes in God.  We all call him something else in our own faith.  But in the end it is still the same person.

I think Vice Mayor Sherman Lea's decision was correct. This is not about limiting Christianity. As a Christian, for me it is about not forcing my religion and my beliefs on others. Freedom from religious persecution was a central motivation for many original settlers of our country. Which is why we have a cherished right to worship as we choose. That right is one of which I am very proud. If we as Christians have right to offer our prayer then so does each other religion. Why not just take a silent moment and let each pray as they choose if they choose. Should be a personal matter of choice. Not something anyone is forced into. After all, as Christians we believe that we must accept Christ not by force but by full embrace.

I also agree that Vice Mayor Sherman Lea should be able to pray in the name of Jesus.  After all, why else do we celebrate CHRISTmas?  It' is truly a sad day when everyone but Christians are allowed to express their faith.  And yes, the Lord will return soon.  Then, EVERY knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.    

It's sad that Mr. Lea no longer feels free to pray in Jesus' name because of the attack of the e-mailer.  It's sad that the e-mailer prefers to muzzle others rather than live in a free society.  It's sad that there is so little tolerance in the U.S. today for Christians who exercise their religious liberty.  I commend Mr. Lea for his courageous and honest prayer and for his recognition of our dependence on God and our need for His blessing.  

 Well, here in the United States we DO have the Freedom OF Relgion and the Freedom of Speech.  There is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding a separation of church and state.  Nothing.  Now, before all the libs freak out, I do not want a theocracy.  I simply wish that our country could continue to be free to ALL, and not just the tiny minority that feels the need to ram it's "disbelief" down the majority's throat.  Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  Our Lord and Savior. It is about nothing else.  If you wish to end Christmas as a government holiday, go ahead and try it.

I wonder if Christians in the Muslim world are given the same veto power that atheists et al are given here in America?

 

 Why is it that only certain things are "allowed"?  It is offensive to me that I can't say certain things or do certain things because others don't believe in it.  I believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  If you don't that is fine with me and ok for you to say you don't in my presence but I can't say I do in your presence?  How is this fair?

  I think that Vice Mayor Lea should stand his ground and remain on the rotation of ministers who offer opening prayers at council meetings.   How wonderful that in today's (politically correct) world all that people have to worry about is a Christian minister praying for guidance for our local governemental leaders.  It was asked below how Christians would feel if they were forced to be subject to a Hindu or Muslim prayer; well, to begin with, I personally would only be offended if  I truly felt 'forced'. 

mmartin:

What do you think about Vice Mayor Sherman Lea's decision to refrain from leading the city council invocation because of an inadvertent reference to "the son of the Lord"?

 Secondly, this is still (Thank, God!) America, land of the free, which means anyone is free to pray to whomever or whatever they wish to pray to.  Finally, anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, who is offended by a prayer to the One true living God, is also free to leave the room, the meeting, the state or this country.  When all is said and done, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

Normal 0 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-alt:Tahoma; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129023 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129023 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:.5in .5in .5in .5in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

It is evident that recent events in other municipal localities have prompted this discussion.  Mr. Cooper is apparently riding the wave of outspoken malcontents who have appeared on the scene since the U. S. Supreme Court declared in 1992 that the recitation of "nonsectarian" prayers by invited clergy at public high school graduations is unconstitutional. Their conclusion then was stated as: "it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."

Yet, in 2005, a federal appeals court upheld the Chesterfield County Council's practice of inviting a variety of clergy members to lead its nonsectarian opening prayers. Also recall that it rejected a claim by a self-described "witch" that she should be allowed to lead the prayers. It should be pointed out that the significant point relating to this case is that the opening prayers were rotated among those of different beliefs. Rev. Hashmel Turner, a resident of Fredericksburg who, as a council member, took his turn in leading the customary council opening prayer. Rev. Turner caused a mushroom of politico disarray that initiated a series of somewhat vitriolic darts being tossed about, for innocently finishing his prayer by saying "in Jesus name."  Also recall that seventeen chaplains resigned from the state police office in a case relating to this.  All of this stemmed from the Fredericksburg regular council meeting where some unnamed citizen became offended, whereupon he then elicited help from activist groups and threatened a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member was not properly censored. City officials quickly adopted a policy requiring "nondenominational" prayers at public political gatherings, fearing that if they did not do so, lawsuits could occur.  Apparently, this has become the norm.

Unfortunately, I suspect that something akin to this will be the result in our city as well.  I have an alternate suggestion:  Why not ask a guest clergyman to offer the opening prayer at council meeting where there is a short announcement (or it could be publicized beforehand).  The opening prayer could then be rotated among what would be an approved list of community religious leaders chosen from among faiths that are Christians, Jewish Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Toaist, or even atheists (I’m not sure if they pray or not). This will alleviate the possibility of offence of anyone and the need to dictate an end to the prayer. This would also solve the dilemma, articulated by Ms O’Connor’s ruling concerning the establishment clause, that no religion could be “singled out” and therefore defeat the very purpose of the First Amendment. This is now known as the “Lemon Test”.

 

Personally, I applaud the actions of Sherman Lea, but yet I understand the implications of his actions and also thankful that I live in a country where each segment of society has equal rights.