Governmental prayers have been a hot-button issue this year. In July, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister and member of the Fredericksburg City Council, did not have a right to say a sectarian prayer to open council meetings. Lawyers for Turner are now trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. [Related story.]

Roanoke Vice Mayor Sherman Lea sparked criticism when he referred to Jesus Christ during a prayer that opened a council meeting on Dec. 15. Lea's invocation raised the ire of at least one person who, in an e-mail to council members, called the prayer "illegal and offensive to the many religions in Roanoke City." Lea, who is also a minister, then asked to be removed from a rotation of clergy used to give the opening prayer at council meetings.

The issue has also been raised in the most recent General Assembly session, as well.

What is the place of prayer in government meetings?

Join the discussion here.

  I guess if these folks are going to continue to break the law...then Criminal or Civil charges should be brought against them..

Bluesguy, which law are they breaking?

I have a profound respect for everyone's own interpretation of religion and spirituality. And while I am an athiest, I am comfortable with the practice of opening prayers but I believe those prayers should remain strictly non-sectarian. If an individual lacks the self-discipline to conduct a non-sectarian opening prayer during a taxpayer funded government meeting, one wonders if that individual has the discipline required to serve his or her constituents in a fair and balanced manner.

mmartin:

Governmental prayers have been a hot-button issue this year. In July, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister and member of the Fredericksburg City Council, did not have a right to say a sectarian prayer to open council meetings. Lawyers for Turner are now trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. [Related story.]

Roanoke Vice Mayor Sherman Lea sparked criticism when he referred to Jesus Christ during a prayer that opened a council meeting on Dec. 15. Lea's invocation raised the ire of at least one person who, in an e-mail to council members, called the prayer "illegal and offensive to the many religions in Roanoke City." Lea, who is also a minister, then asked to be removed from a rotation of clergy used to give the opening prayer at council meetings.

What is the place of prayer in government meetings?

Join the discussion here.

Why would a nation "under God" with it's currency stating "In God we Trust" and founded entirely upon Christian principles and practices NOT want to ask God to grant His favor, leadership and blessings upon our governments business. One may work to hard to determine where we are headed as a nation but no one can change where we have come from. We will always be a nation founded upon the foundation of Christianity.  

Please read closer...this isn't about "god" its about refering to Jesus. Praying to God is fine because it allows every person to define that God for themselves...when you say Jesus you are restricting the scope of the prayer to only the Christians in the room. Get it. It really isn't that big of a deal and it really pisses me off that with all the real issues this city could tackle are public officials are choosing to play this losing game.

Just have a moment of silence that allows anyone to pray, or not to pray, to anyone/thing they want or don't want to....then get on to the work of running the city please.

Its that simple. No more issue. Move on.

I was taught in school this country was founded on Christian principles. It is a shame we have gone so far away from those principles. It is no wonder the country is in such a mess. We have take God out of everything but when we get in trouble He is the first one we call on. How often would you come running to help someone if they told you they didn't want to even hear your name? I thank the two gentlemen who are not afraid to call upon the name of Jesus. Christians have rolled over and played dead every time someone thinks we have offended them and violated their rights. What about our Christians rights in a nation our forefathers declared to be a Christian nation? If we ever need direction from God we need it now and to say not to pray in the name of His Son is unbelievable. No one is trying to convert others by praying in the name of Jesus. If those who don't believe in Jesus or even if He existed what’s the big deal about praying to something they don't believe lived or existed? Should I go to another country and they pray to some other God it is not going to offend me because I don't believe in who they are praying too. I thank God for the freedom we have in this great nation but as a Christian I see my freedom to worship my God being taken away a little at a time. It is time for Christians to take a stand and not to stick their heads in the sand hoping it will go away. The only thing going away is your right as a Christian to pray and worship God as YOU see fit.

roenoke:

Please read closer...this isn't about "god" its about refering to Jesus. Praying to God is fine because it allows every person to define that God for themselves...when you say Jesus you are restricting the scope of the prayer to only the Christians in the room. Get it. It really isn't that big of a deal and it really pisses me off that with all the real issues this city could tackle are public officials are choosing to play this losing game.

Just have a moment of silence that allows anyone to pray, or not to pray, to anyone/thing they want or don't want to....then get on to the work of running the city please.

Its that simple. No more issue. Move on.

 It is not that simple. Let me add to my previous statement. According to Christian principles, ALL prayer is to be made to God(Jehovah God),in the Name of Jesus. Any other prayer is dust in the wind.

Roanoke City Council doesn't need another controversy. Could someone please help Sherman Lea understand the law? 

Our nation was founded on Christian principles as has been mentioned above.  It was founded by Christian men and women with those same Christian principles.  A simple search of history of the USA using the founder’s names and their “religion” will be found online.   Having repeated that please allow me to give an analogy.  There was a faithful man and woman.  Their love and adoration for each other and their friends was well known.  Along comes another woman who sees this loving and faithful relationship and desires it for her own.  Instead of seeking a man to form her own “faithful and loving relationship”, she pursues the “faithful” married man.  Using all of her wiles and ways, she is victorious in her pursuit. The faithful woman is heartbroken and desolate.  However, the once faithful man has been destroyed also because his faithfulness has been destroyed by his becoming unfaithful.  Now the application.  Our great country being founded on Godly and faithful principles is having those faithful principles attacked by those who wish to destroy its faithfulness to the One who established her in her faithfulness.   They find it offensive to even mention His great and holy name publicly.  It is obvious that they will win having already succeeded in several areas in national and state government.  But like the second woman in the analogy above, she won the man but destroyed him in the process.  Those who wish to destroy the faith and faithfulness of this great Christian nation will be victorious but will destroy the very thing they wish to possess.  The faithful creator, Jesus Christ, will send judgment on this once great and faithful nation and those who caused her fall will be victims of their own success.

 I couldn't agree with you more.  Every person has the right to their own interpretation of religion and can choose to worship, or not, as they please.  However, when you are saying an opening prayer for the government, you are speaking on behalf of the government.  Our government is here to represent ALL the people, and not all the people are Christian, nor is the government.  Prayers simply must be non-sectarian.  What Pastor Sumner did was simply infammatory, as he did this in full knowledge of the upset that was caused by Mr. Lea's remark.  It was rude, he was instigating trouble, and he should be ashamed of his actions.  What he choses to pray for in his church is his business and his right, and I respect that.  But to get up and do what he did when he did it, that is just trying to start more trouble and we should expect more from a pastor.  Talk about a lack of morals.

"Freedom of Religion" is especially relevant within any sort of government setting.  This seems like a civil rights case just waiting to happen.  Sure, folk have every right to pray.  No question nor really any true concern on my part...but is the government planning to pay for the legal battle that is sure to ensue over civil rights?  Do you beleve the taxpayers are going to swallow it?

Simple solution:  cut the "opening prayer" from the council meetings...or represent ALL of the religious affiliations of citizens at the council opening.

Then stop wasting tax money on frivilous things.  Go to church to pray.  Get to WORK in council!

 Law? With all due respect, we all need some help in understanding the law. Here goes

"...one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government’s placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services.”  Engel v. Vitale (1962).  Stated by the founding fathers and the US Supreme Court.

"Be Thou present; O God of Wisdom, and direct the councils of this Honorable Assembly: enable them to settle all things on the best and surest of foundations: that the scene of blood may be speedily closed: that Order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and Truth, and Justice, Religion, and Piety prevail and flourish among the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ Thy Son and Our Savior. Amen." A prayer prayed at the first legislative session of the US Congress by Jacob Duche. Did he break the law?

I think Samuel Adams said it best in 1774.  He “was no bigot and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, and at the same time a friend to his country.” 

We do need to be reminded of what the law says, what history says, and what common sense dictates.

 I am so tired of manufactured indignance from Non-Christians.  While I would admit, this whole thing is a bit absurd, they (Non-Christians) need to accept the fact that we live in a Judeo-Christian society.  Where is THEIR tolerance?  Try pulling this crap in an Islamic country.

Our founding documents state that our liberty is given to us by our CREATOR...that would be God, folks.  The men who wrote them were Christians and really made a point to lay off the religious rhetoric because they didn't want this to be perceived as a theocracy.  But, THEY were Christians and they wrote the founding documents using their Christian faith and the Bible (among other things) as a guide.  This is the truth. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION ABOUT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  Look it up. 

Anyways, all that said. I say, hold an "un-official" prayer before-hand for those who would like to have it and then move into the building and have your meeting.  If Non-Christians still object...tough. 

For those out there that ARE Christian...you'd better get used to this type of ridicule and treatment.  It is only going to get worse.  We haven't seen the half of it yet.

mmartin:

Governmental prayers have been a hot-button issue this year. In July, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister and member of the Fredericksburg City Council, did not have a right to say a sectarian prayer to open council meetings. Lawyers for Turner are now trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. [Related story.]

Roanoke Vice Mayor Sherman Lea sparked criticism when he referred to Jesus Christ during a prayer that opened a council meeting on Dec. 15. Lea's invocation raised the ire of at least one person who, in an e-mail to council members, called the prayer "illegal and offensive to the many religions in Roanoke City." Lea, who is also a minister, then asked to be removed from a rotation of clergy used to give the opening prayer at council meetings.

What is the place of prayer in government meetings?

Join the discussion here.

I see this issue as being another tempest in a teapot but do not have the ability to determine the true motivations of others whether they are wanting to challenge or change current law, following a personal interpretation of their own religion, moved by the spirit, hoping to cultivate a following or constituency, to place a dominant group in power which allows exclusions of others in the undertaking of public matters, or taking eyes away from subjects truly relevant to the purpose of government.

I, too, have a profound respect for an individual being allowed to define and follow their own interpretation of worship and spiritually.  I was taught our country was founded on principles of religious freedom, rather than being exclusively Christian.  In public school, I was not taught that Europeans took over a country already populated by some of God’s children. I can remember being re-educated on saying the Pledge of Allegiance once the words “under God” had been inserted.  I can remember asking about “In God We Trust” being printed on U.S. currency and getting a homework assignment which brought to the establishment of the U.S. not being subject to British rule and its monarchy (which at certain times in history was seen as being divinely appointed). 

The majority of our founding fathers are known for holding Deist beliefs as seen in the wording of key documents this country remains grounded upon.  Throughout our country’s brief history people have repeatedly tried to chip away at these principles and insert their own religious views, but the law shows church and state are to remain separate to the degree religious organizations receive special privileges including tax-exempt status even for non-worship related business activities.  If those who wish to invoke Jesus (or any other religion) are willing to pay taxes, too, step right up to the tax collector’s window.      

This is not a matter of rejecting the Son of God, or being offended at hearing his name.  It is instead about doing so at the exclusion of other religious and special privilege to, and possibly excluding those who hold none (and our Constitution provides that this, too, is acceptable), and defying earthly laws.    

Is Roanoke ready to have its invocation conducted by a Muslim cleric, a Rabbi, a Buddhist priest, a Wiccan priestess, or Indian shaman?  I fear Christians would be offended by having to hear the religious views of others.  Even if Roanoke were ready for this and did so on a rotating basis, these invocations should, by law, remain inclusive enough to make all listeners fell welcomed and blessed to be participating in the government business before them.  If this cannot be resolved or adhered to one can always feel free to comport themselves before government meetings or gatherings funded by public taxes, prior to leaving their homes or visiting a house of worship beforehand, and eliminate the invocation entirely. 

“Seanpecor” comments:  “If an individual lacks the self-discipline to conduct a non-sectarian opening prayer during a taxpayer funded government meeting, one wonders if that individual has the discipline required to serve his or her constituents in a fair and balanced manner.”   To that I say, Amen.