I do not want politicians praying for guidance in making public policy any more than I want my electrician praying for guidance while wiring my house. Both are scary thoughts. I hire/elect folks on the assumption that they know what they are doing.

Wait, there is one prayer I'd like to hear. "Please God, if there is a God, prevent us from screwing things up worse than we already have".

bobchristenson:

I do not want politicians praying for guidance in making public policy any more than I want my electrician praying for guidance while wiring my house. Both are scary thoughts. I hire/elect folks on the assumption that they know what they are doing.

Funny, and true.  I sometimes tell my students, "Remember, we have a test on Monday.  You can pray if you want to, but just in case... you probably ought to study, too."

Gibson Brown:

I spent some time listening to songs from the Woodstock era tonight, mid/later sixties, early seventies, and I was reminded of the absolute passion put out in music and lyric from this era...it is truly inspiring.

Interesting commentary, Gip.  My oldest daughter (Sarah Hanson, MD at Johns Hopkins) and I were talking about this while walking with the dogs on Monday.  She is thinking of working on an Indian Reservation or maybe overseas for Doctors Without Borders, and she commented on how few of the young doctors she knows have any interest in public service.  They just want to go for the big bucks.  It came up when I mentioned our Valley Voices discussion topic for this week.  Her point was very similar to yours tonight: the sad obsession of her peers with material wealth.  What happened to the idealism that defined our generation in our youth? 

Going to bed now.  Ciao, Dave.

 Dr. Dave..."Hey, Gip.  Did you get your kids and twin canine rockets settled into bed?  Ricky is restless because my oldest daughter (the doctor in Baltimore) is home with us for a few days, out late, and he is staying up worrying about her (saving me the trouble), sitting by the door in his sphinx position.  Libby is resting calmly (awake) at my feet.  Virginia Western started the summer term Monday and I have two online history classes with a total of 70 students.  I've been "taking roll" and getting them started on their first week of assignments.  I'm about done for tonight.  --Dave"

Dave, all are snoozing comfortably here. Ellie and Penny are with me, and we are punching the clock here too. Your daughter sounds like she is an awesome human, blessed with your intellect, and common sense of what matters. Tell her I said I am so very impressed with her endeavors and accomplishments. Another fresh day when we awake. Gip

I respectfully request a do-over.  ;-)  

Luanne, please consider this second response instead of my previous post.  I hope that it it clarifies and/or creates additional questions as I believe both are desired, then again, no change may be seen at all ...

It seems as if we’re being told there are only two interpretations we can choose between.   On one side there is the secular: In the utter absence of God, man stands nobly, if not naively, protecting his fellow man from any and all offense.  On the other is the religious: where the ‘right’eous defend the omnipotent and omniscient God. To be sure, disentangling a collective government “of the people, by the people and for the people” from their individual faith is complicated.  But a hatchet shouldn’t be used where a scalpel is required.  We need to use our brains and both sides are necessary.  Love cannot be legislated and faith cannot be forbidden.
 
In the tug of war between the two it would appear that the religious are rapidly losing ground. Educators are prohibited from teaching history while laws etched in stone banning murder and stealing are ordered out of courthouses; Leaders are expected to offer hope without expressing faith; Promises are demanded where covenants are broken.  And then we complain we’re lost.

As a Christian I can’t help but feel herded out of the public square, banished to the outskirts of an increasingly secular society.   At times it even scares me.  I fear both becoming the godless people the enemy wants us to be and suffering the persecution my ancestors endured.  Thank God I still have my faith.  I know that even if only love remains, it is the greatest of the three.  Clinging to it, I choose an option not being offered: to follow a Shepherd who has told me that nothing can separate us from the love of God.

allisonwelch:

It seems as if we’re being told there are only two interpretations we can choose between.   On one side there is the secular: In the utter absence of God, man stands nobly, if not naively, protecting his fellow man from any and all offense.  On the other is the religious: where the ‘right’eous defend the omnipotent and omniscient God. To be sure, disentangling a collective government “of the people, by the people and for the people” from their individual faith is complicated.  But a hatchet shouldn’t be used where a scalpel is required.  We need to use our brains and both sides are necessary.  Love cannot be legislated and faith cannot be forbidden.

I enjoyed your post, Allison, but I detect a note of fear in it.  Perhaps I'm reading more into it than I should.  I would like to suggest to you that an "omnipotent and omnipresent God" does not need us to defend him.  He is perfectly capable of defending himself, otherwise "omnipotent" doesn't mean what I think it means.  I will agree with you that he has required that we stand for him, but thankfully, the success of our efforts does not rest upon our shoulders.  

I think it would be useful for us to see ourselves as simple candles, unnoticed  and of little use until darkness comes and there is no other source of light.  Even then there's not much for us to do; we can't even light ourselves, and we simply exist where we find ourselves or where we have been placed or stored.  Then at the proper time, God lights us and our only job is to burn, giving our very substance as fuel for the flame.  Our fuel is limited, our light is little, and we may be extinguished and re-lit many times, but our mission is the same every time, and it is never offensive.  We are not to burn people with judgment or start destructive fires, just give a little light to the immediate area where we find ourselves.  We are not to resent the fact that people who love darkness curse our little flame because their quarrel is with the one who lit us. 

I like your line, "Love cannot be legislated and faith cannot be forbidden."  Our faith is not in danger just because our government forbids us to openly practice it in certain ways and areas, and we do much more damage in the long run by demanding our "right" to do so.  If you're looking for biblical examples, consider the prophet, Daniel, who found himself a captive in a strange land where he was forbidden to openly practice his faith.  He did not resist the authorities duly appointed over him, but instead, looked for ways to accommodate them without compromising his faith in God.  Our faith is interior, placed there by an omnipotent God, and it can never be taken by anyone, though they take our life.

Clonnie..."Our fuel is limited, our light is little, and we may be lit many times, but our mission is the same every time, and it is never offensive.  We are not to burn people with judgement or start destructive fires, just give a little light to the immediate area where we find ourselves"

Sir, that is brilliant Clonnie. You go deep with the best of them, and it seems to flow for you. Thanks for sharing. I have 'no comment' on the rest of he religious stuff, for I have had my breakfast, and my size 11 1/2 foot won't fit in one bite, and I recently had to kick myself in the head with it. Gip

Bob..."I do not want politicians praying for guidance in making public policy any more than I want my electrician praying for guidance while wiring my house. Both are scary thoughts. I hire/elect folks on the assumption that they know what they are doing."

"Wait, there is one prayer I'd like to hear. "Please God, if there is a God, prevent us from screwing things up worse than we already have".

Hey Bob, you are a funny one, said the bizzarro guy. I get your drift, but I don't think joking about those steeped in religious ways is the way to go. Hearts and souls are put into ones true answer to life and the meaning of, and it is akin to poking their mother with a stick when you ridicule any persons belief system. I really think we will get along well when at a social event, or simply partying a bit, and I suggest this advice in the name of harmony amongst the group. It has taken me 49 years and some months to understand this. Feel free to tell me to take a long walk on a short pier, but I see you as a smart guy, and maybe you will consider what I have stated. Gip

Luanne Traud:

What does the First Amendment mean in stating:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

 To set the discussion it is not what I think but what the United States Supreme Court thinks that matters.  I this area of the law like several others I personally believe the Court has stretched the fabric of the Constitution beyond the point of elasticity.

To the "Framers", as white men of Christian background, "establishment" referred to a "state church" such as existed in Great Britian and from which many of their ancesters had fled.  Firmly believing they had no power to restrict the states in this area they restricted only the power of the federal Congress to enact laws to establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.  In my personal opinion the Constitution was not intended to restrict a local governments ability to put a cross on a courthouse lawn or place the ten commandments on a tablet but that is where the Supreme Court has taken us.  

One can say, "ok, if you put up Christian symbols and beliefs it is lawful as long as you put up the symbols of every other recognized religion".  Where does one stop?  What is the symbol or statement of beliefs of the followers of Zoroaster, the world's oldest known monothestic religion?  It also misses the point of view of the atheist, misplaced in my opinion, that government should not recognize any form of diety based religion.  There goes the Pledge of Allegiance and "in God we trust".

I adhere to the opinion that the First Amendment simply meant that the United States Government would not legislate regarding any particular religion.

Almost four days after the fact I have just noticed that while Luanne asked us, "What does the First Amendment mean when it says...?"  she titled the topic, "Public prayer."  Was she trying to steer us toward a specific application of the establishment clause, is her Freudian slip showing, or am I just once again seeing a conspiracy behind every tree?  It's okay to take my question as rhetorical, but if you do I may suspect you of being in on the plot.

P.S. I'm getting a little tired of a spell check that won't accept my spelling of "okay."   OK???

charles osterhoudt:

I adhere to the opinion that the First Amendment simply meant that the United States Government would not legislate regarding any particular religion.

I agree with you, Charles, but we have this thing now where some see the Constitution as a living, breathing entity, flexible enough to accommodate whatever popular sentiment we find ourselves experiencing.  We find a "right to privacy" that trumps the right to life, and "separation of church and state" is an absolute that must be enfored to the nth dgree, even though those words do not appear in the document.  The founders gave us an amendment process for changing the document, and we have used it from time to time, but it's much easier to just install right-thinking judges with the "correct" ideological views.  What really scares me are the justices such as Stephen Breyer who form their opinions at least partly on laws and views of other nations and peoples around the world.  What is really unbelievable to me is that there is no public outrage over a justice openly basing his opinions on sources other than the Constitution and case law.

Luanne Traud:

What does the First Amendment mean in stating:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

The headline read,” Roanoke’s vice mayor hit a hot-button issue by opening a city meeting with a prayer that referred to God's son”. What he did, he did because of his faith.  If I were asked to lead a prayer in an open format, I too would end my prayer in the name of Jesus.

Faith to me believes in what you do not see.  We cannot always see how prayer works or how prayers get answered can we?  Most of us pray to someone or something.  The wind blows you can’t see it, you see the leaves moving on the trees.  That is what I believe happens when I pray in the name of Jesus, I don’t see my words, or even my thoughts, going to heaven, but I know the power of the Holy Spirit is carrying them there. 

Prohibiting the free exercise of public prayer for me means being cut off from my lifeline.  If that means I might be persecuted, arrested, or publicly flogged, so be it.  I don’t need to worry about what to say or how to say it for at the right time, I will be given what to say by my Father in heaven.  

Dr. James Gray said in 1914, “God gives us the privilege and the indescribable honor of presenting our bodies to the Holy Spirit, to be His dwelling place on earth. The Bible says in Romans 12 verse 1 and 2 that we are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice and not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind.  We cant give our bodies to Jesus, he already has one, nor to God who remains on his throne, but to the Holy Spirit who has no body.” 

~Tanya~

Corrie ten Boom once said, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.”

Prayer moves the hand of God that moves the world. Watchman Nee said, “Our prayers lay the track down on which God's power can come. Like a mighty locomotive, his power is irresistible, but it cannot reach us without rails.” 

God has a course mapped out for your life, and all the inadequacies in the world will not change His mind. He will be with you every step of the way. And though it may take time, He has a celebration planned for when you cross over the Red Seas of your life. ~Charles Stanley~

What an incredible witness it is to a lost and fearful society when the Christian acts like a child of God, living under the loving sovereignty of the Heavenly Father. The Christian needs to walk in peace, so no matter what happens they will be able to bear witness to a watching world.  ~Henry Blackaby~

            The First Amendment includes two clauses concerning religion. Congress may not establish an official state church nor may it deny the free exercise of religion. So-called “constitutional experts” attempt to mystify this simple guarantee with, but the Founders’ vision was quite clear.

            The “establishment” clause prevented the creation of an official state church. It is ludicrous to believe that a Congress that opened each day with prayer and that hosted Sunday services in its chambers envisioned a government that would in no way be influenced by religious faith. To the contrary, many of the Founders wrote of the importance of Christianity in guiding the young republic.

            The modern fascination with “separation of church and state” stems from a 1947 Supreme Court decision in which Justice Hugo Black cited that phrase. The source was correspondence between President Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. Jefferson’s letter assured the Danbury Baptists that religious freedom is a natural right, not a government-granted right. The concern that government-conferred privileges had replaced the concept of natural rights was common in relation to the entire Bill of Rights. Rather than infer that faith should not influence government, Jefferson guaranteed that government was not to interfere with religious practice.

            Today’s reality holds no threat of a theocracy. There is neither a “state church” nor any movement to create one. There is no movement to banish any religious faiths. However, the last several decades has seen a growing hostility to public displays of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Christianity is the dominant line of faith in America. It is also inextricably woven into the history of the United States and the fabric of its culture. If a First Amendment threat exists, it is to free exercise not establishment.

Luanne Traud:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Our nation was founded by Christians who rebelled against the current system in the hope of forming a better union.   They created a constitution including amendments to start us on that path.  Jesus Christ was a community leader who rebelled against the current system in the hope of creating a more loving community.  His disciples left instructions for future generations so that they could follow the path of love and forgiveness.

It does not offend me when people who pray in public use names like Jesus, Allah, Great Spirit or Isis as long as the intention of the prayer is to ground us and to remind us to open our hearts and minds for the work that needs to be done.  I am aware that some people are offended by the use of names.  If I am in a public gathering that needs people to have open minds and hearts in order to proceed with important work then starting it with a prayer that offends anyone undermines the ability for the gathering to be successful.

In order to continue to create a better union founded on the principles of love and forgiveness then we need to create a public way to gather to achieve the work that needs to be done without using names in prayers.  A simple invocation followed by a brief moment of silence where individuals can silently pray to whoever they choose to is a simple solution. 

 Freeda..."In order to continue to create a better union founded on the principles of love and forgiveness then we need to create a public way to gather to achieve the work that needs to be done without using names in prayers.  A simple invocation followed by a brief moment of silence where individuals can silently pray to whoever they choose to is a simple solution"

Freeda, I enjoyed reading your fine post. Hypothetically speaking, if the human carcass speaking the invocation quotes from the Book of Satan, or Pagan's Digest, or such, but mentions no names, then suggests a moment of silence, is that still OK? Just curious, Gip