PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON'S PRAYER

"Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection, that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

Grant our supplications, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

George Washington
Written at Newburg, June 8th, 1783
Sent to the governors of all the states

Wasn't George Washington one of our Founding Father's?   Oh, that's right, he's been written out of history.

New River Reader:

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. 

 

Thank you for a very clear and concise explanation and for setting the record straight.

Walker, you say Judeo. Do you have a clue what you're talking about? The Jewish religion.  They don't belive Jesus is the Savior that you believe him to be. They believe him to be nothing more than another prophet.

 Sherman Lea DOES understand the law....the law that will last long after man's laws are gone.  Hooray for him and his stand!

You're right, Walker!  We have allowed political correctness to erase Jesus' name and much of our History! 

Matthew 10:33 "but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

 I don't who these fruit loops are that have a problem with prayer or the use of Our Heavenly Father, or his Son Jesus Christ name within any Government office or session. Our country has always believed in God, and had the trust in God that God would approve of our declaration for freedom for which this nation stands. There has only been one bible which was translated from the Greek original text in the scrolls. Man is the one who has changed their ways to feel their own desires, because they couldn't believe in or live by the right way. And they will have to answer for that. If they can't get with the program, and listen to a persons heart felt prayer to our Lord and Savior. Then they need to close their ears, or leave, and keep their mouth shut. These people use what ever excuse to not follow the rules that God place as God's instructions for us to live a life full of happiness and faith. They need to just get over it.    

From Rob

Walker:

 Some of the settlers came here to escape religious persecution, this is true.  But, this isn't what our country was built on. Period.  I am in NO way wanting a theocracy, by ANY means, but let's not twist history to back up our personal opinions.  Our country was founded by Christian men who wished to be independent of England.  Mainly due to taxes and abuse.  Religion played a VERY small part, if any, as to why they wanted to separate from England.  Anyways, that's beside the point of my comment.

I agree that making a "show" of our faith in public is most times exactly that, a show.  It is done by many who wish to be exalted and considered more righteous, pious, et cetera.  However, I've been taught from the Bible that a man is supposed to share the love of God with as many people as he can, whenever he can.  I believe Jesus said something about that. 

Would it do me or my God any good to shout down people walking on the street, warning them of their sin?  It really isn't my style, BUT, here in America, we have the freedom of Speech.  We also have the freedom of Religion. 

See, this is where the fictional "separation of church and state" nonsense comes into effect. We DO have the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion, but you must never mix the two on public property.  Otherwise, secular humanists will complain that their tax money is being wasted.

I can think of a few government funded programs that Christians might find offensive.

 

 And before leaving England, where did the Pilgrims go?  And why did they leave that port?  And was it only males?  They arrives on soil which had a people who already had their own spiritual beliefs.  And what happened to them?  What if Sunni's had gotten here first?  Many Muslims also believe there's is the one true religion, as do many branches of Christian faith, and they are to spread this belief or conquer those who chose to ignore it.  How many people believe in the Holy Trinity, how many hold Mary as sacred?  Do all Muslims and all Christians interpret religious text the same?  No.  Should whichever sect has the biggest team get to dominate even government?  No.  The Bill of Rights is clear in that we have certain freedoms, but they stop at the end of our noses and cannot infringe upon the rights of others.  I can think of many Christian programs that benefit from government funding or exemptions that other Christians or non-Christians might find offensive, too.  Weak arguements through and through.  The point with freedom of religion and freedom of speech is you can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want.  You can say what you think and I can say what I think.  We have that right.  But when it comes to government, it must be neutral and inclusive and you do not have the right to require your rights being superior to mine or anyone elses, especially when you are wearing the hat of a government representative be it elected official or performing a task you agreed to on behalf of that public body.  If you want an example of a good secular country, look at Turkey (which is predominately Muslim).  When religion got too far into its democracy, you saw military coups to stop it.  And I have been subjected to people shouting out their interpretation of Christian beliefs on public streets and it was not pleasant.  Keep your theology off my biology and your theology off my politics.  Period. 

As Peter's letter to the Ignoraniates states in Acts 18: 21-26, "Those who do not declare my name in thy government gatherings shall be persecuted for thy sin".

Morons. Enjoy Eternity in Hell.

 I wish Vice Mayor Lea hadn't given up so quickly because of just one "radical activist" email.  That is what the, in your face, radicals want and expect from us....to "turn the other cheek".  If we do cave in...they have won and we haven't stood up for Christ, if we don't cave in and take a stand....all of a sudden we are "divisive and intolerant."  It seems funny to me that people today are tolerant of everything except Christianity.

Where would we be today if the disciples had given up so quickly???  We can't have it both ways....you either take a stand for Christ or for man.  Which will it be?

 Jarrett-

Have you ever heard the phrase Judeo-Christian?  You aren't that clueless are you?

 This SOIL isn't what I am talking about, friend, I am talking about this COUNTRY and our Founding documents. Nothing you have written in your response factually disputes anything I said above.  Not sure what you were intending. 

My whole point is that Non-Christians should grow up a bit and respect the history, heritage and traditions of our country.  You don't have to be a Christian, fine, do as you please.  But, you cannot re-write history.  We were founded BY Christians and since then we have been a Christian nation.  Like it or not.   

If you read my later posts I said that the prayer should be held outside of the building for those who wish to have it, the easily offended can certainly stay inside with earplugs if they so decide.

 Bluegrass, I like your answer. You're right, what law? You know, I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the coolest things this country had. It allows people to believe what they want to believe without being killed for it. The council asked Sumner to pray, and he did.

God bless you all.

This forum is in dire need of Christians who can debate intelligently. It seems to be rather heavy with folks who resort to personal attacks or self-congratulatory vitriol. With respect to the inflammatory posts in this discussion... If the goal was to change the hearts and minds of those who are undecided in this matter, rest assured that it's working. It's just not working in the way that you intended.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits the enacting of laws that would favor one religion or prevent the freedom of an individual to believe in and express their religious views. 

Given the above, there is nothing illegal or morally wrong with a Christian prayer being conducted before a governmental activity.  There is no one stating that only Christians can attend council meetings or that non-Christians must bow their heads and accept the prayer being given.  While it might, perhaps, violate Jefferson's wall between Church and State, his words were merely a written opinion and not a law. 

Personally, I'm an Agnostic (an Empirical/Weak Agnostic, if there are those who require specifics).  While I might not hold the beliefs of those conducting the prayers, I feel a certain amount respect for their personal beliefs and convictions.  That is more what this whole debacle seems to be about... respecting the beliefs of others or denying them their practices out of a lack of respect.  As far as I've noticed, the City Council has not stated that only Christian prayers may be spoken before a meeting or that attendees must believe and pray as they do.  Rather, this situation arose from a single attendee who, rather than voicing their opinion at the meeting, chose to keep quiet until they were 'safely' away and then threatened with law suits... threatened, mind you, to prevent the free exercise of religion by another citizen.

It might be hard for some non-Christians to swallow (or, in this case, more radical non-religious individuals), but it is quite possible to sit through a prayer and feel no offense.  I don't believe in Christ (as the son of God, rather...I do believe he was an important historical figure); however, when one of my closest friends, a devout Lutheran, prays before meals, I will sit and remain silent as a matter of respect for his chosen beliefs.  I do that because all I ask of others is to respect my beliefs and convictions. 

Let's look at it from a different perspective.  Prayer, at it's most basic and without the religious aspects, is a meditative state.  It helps individuals to focus their minds on a task at hand or provides a moment for the release of tension.  Personally, as it appears all of our council members are Christians, I would rather they experience less stress and a bit more clarity of mind before they proceed to make decisions that affect our city.  It's their religion, their prayer and it helps them in some way.  If it isn't your religion and you happen to be attending, remain silent during their prayer then ask if you can offer a "prayer" of your own.

Another issue with demanding they remove prayer or prohibit these individuals from praying in the name of their God(s), you open the door to them using the same arguments to deny or prohibit your practices.  If this same inividual who sent the email comes forward and starts to state their beliefs in an open forum, they can now, effectively, be told they cannot do that... by their own argument that it may be offensive to a single person attending.  Sadly, that is the way we are going... and, honestly, it isn't the "Christian Right" that's accomplishing the task; rather, it's the individuals taking offense at every act of religious bodies.

We need to get away from the "rights of religious expression" and head towards respecting the beliefs of others and allowing them to express them, even if we don't agree with those beliefs.  Honestly, if you want someone to respect your personal set of beliefs, you have to offer that same respect in return.

 The United States was founded by, and for, people who had been denied the chance to worship, and wanted a country that this would not be an issue.  It is totally unconstitutional to even try to change the very foundation we were founded upon.  The Holy Bible (Romans 10:9, 13) teaches us how to become a Christian.  The way is to call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  There is no other way to be a Christian. The Bible also teaches that anyone who tries to avoid going through Jesus, to get to Heaven, is a thief and a robber! (John 10, 1,2,7,-11).  I am worn with people who say they are so afraid of offending someone, yet don't have a bit of trouble offending those of us who are Christians.  Do we think we are so intelligent, that we don't even need God anymore?  Let's don't fool ourselves.