Just to clarify...

I am not FOR prayer to open government meetings, unless everyone is cool with it.  Lord knows, we Christians don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or make them feel bad (I've never understood how it's possible for someone else to make you feel bad, but whatever) If the Christians want to hold a separate meeting outside beforehand, do that.  I am against the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant LEFT.  I am also against their denial of our country's history and their attempts re-write it.  That's all. 

As far as trying to woo non-believers to the Truth, which is Jesus Christ, I am fallible and that has not been my intent here on this message board.  I'd be happy to meet with anyone on here, anytime to discuss Jesus Christ and what He can do.  Once again, I am not perfect, but I will certainly do my best.

How many references to God or Jesus are in the Constitution of the United States?  None.  The only references to religion are the prohibition of religious oaths for government officials (Article VI) and the ban on laws respecting an establishment of religion (Amendment I).  The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892, over 100 years after the founding of the nation.  The words "under God" were not added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1954 (after some intense lobbying by the Kights of Columbus).  The motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins in 1864.  It could just as easily apply to any god, including Allah for Muslims.  Council members, like anyone else, are free to pray to Jesus privately, but not in their official capacity.

Agreed.   I am not arguing that its legal for govt officials to pray in meetings.  It isn't.  Right or wrong.

My responses are aimed at those who think, incorrectly, that this COUNTRY was founded by those who wished to be free of religious ties altogether or that the United States was founded as a haven for those persecuted for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  It wasn't.  The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of freedom from English rule.  The men who wrote it were Christian enough to sign their names to a document that firmly stated that our Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness are given to us by our Creator, which is God.  Their God.  The Judeo-Christian God.

Does that matter in this particular debate?  No.  But, it is true that our country was founded by Christian men who gave God the credit in the most important document in our country's history. 

 It is not illegal to hold or conduct a prayer at a council meeting.  As long as the council does not specifically state that only Christian prayers or beliefs may be presented or as long as they don't deny a representative from another religion to offer a prayer at a meeting, then they have not broken any law.  To be exact with the Constitution, they cannot "establish" Christianity as the official religion of Roanoke and they cannot deny an individual the ability to "express" their non-Christian religious views in prayer (or otherwise).  As such, they can, quite legally have a prayer prior to a council meeting.

The only way in which it would be illegal is if they did not invite or allow any other religion to conduct the opening prayer.  As long as they are open in allowing prayers from representatives of Roanoke's other religious groups (something that could be done on a rotational basis), they are perfectly within their rights and the legal boundaries.  In the reverse perspective, they could simply disallow everyone from offering or conducting a prayer.

The issue at hand is not a matter of legality... it's a matter of an individual feeling offended by the prayer offering.  It's about someone demanding respect for their belief through a lack of respect for someone else's.  Instead of offering suggestions for a 'rotational religious meditation/prayer" or another solution, the emailer simply made empty threats concerning legal action.  It was about Lea using the name "Jesus", pure and simple, which is understandable, considering he's a Christian.

Now, I'm not religious, but I can't seem to understand the need to remove identifying deific names from a prayer to make it 'less offensive'.  If a Christian isn't praying to God or Christ, a Muslim isn't praying to Allah or a Wiccan isn't referencing nature or certain spirits, then they aren't being allowed to fully express their religious beliefs.  Asking them to conduct a generic prayer is, in itself, offensive and completely against their 1st Amendment rights.  If we see a family pray before their meal at a public restaurant, are we going to sue the family or the establishment for allowing our own sensibilities to be offended in some way?  Should I start telling the 'conversion crews' that patrol downtown on weekend nights that I'm going to take legal action against them for discussing their religion near or with me?  Let's go ahead and let the citizens know they cannot wear crosses, pentagrams, Stars of David or any article of clothing that may, in some fashion, relate to a religion or religious point of view. 

Seems a bit silly, doesn't it?  But that's where we're headed if we pander to every individual "taking offense."

On another note, Walker is quite correct.  Our Founding Fathers were not "freeing us from religious ties"... they were concerned with persecution by the Church of England and the Catholics against a number of Protestant sects.  While not specifically stated, it is easily and readily inferred that they were forming a nation "under God."  While the 1st Amendment protects and allows for most religions (obviously, some beliefs that are completely against the law, such as bigamy, polygamy, drug use, etc. are not protected), it was for the intended purpose of not allowing a single Church to dictate the rules of belief.  Whether people want to believe it or not, we were founded as a Christian nation.  Even as full-fledged agnostic, I can acknowledge that fact.

It's a minor point of correction, perhaps, mandlebrot, but the Church of England was Protestant, not Catholic.  The Puritans came to get away from the Church of England but they also signed an oath of allegiance to their king (read the Mayflower Compact).  The political rebellion (the American Revolution) came over a century later and really had nothing to do with religious freedom.  It was about economic opportunity (land and commerce) and self-government.  I think it is a common misunderstanding to connect matters of faith with those of government in the founding our our nation.  The founding fathers mostly were men of faith, and many were Christians, but I agree that it's largely irrelevant to the current debate.  They did not found a "Christian nation," and I challenge anyone to provide specific examples of Christian theology or related principles in the U.S. Constitution. 

Nonetheless, private prayer is perfectly wonderful and totally legal; however, public prayer to a specific deity or religious doctrine is a bit murky when it is part of the official business of government in our pluralistic, secular republic.  The best solution in the case of City Council meetings might be no prayer, a moment of silent prayer/reflection, or a rotation of various sectarian prayers (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu...)

 Very well said.

Mr. Hansen, the Mayflower Compact was entirely different, as you stated.  Columbus came here (North America) for treasure and fame, irrelevant.  The founding (or political rebellion) of the United States was precipitated, or made clear, through the Declaration of Independence.  In this document, our founding fathers stated that our most BASIC rights were given to us by God.  Their Christian God.  That's my point.

Did they want our country to be a theocracy?  Of course not.  Did they view us as a Christian nation?  Absolutely.

Well said Mandlebrot.

 To clarify, my reference to Columbus was not in connection to the Mayflower.  I was merely showing that people have come here for MANY reasons and most were irrelevant to the founding of our country.

Mandelbrot,

     Actually, the Supreme Court has made several decisions over the years to state that the first amendment also means that government may not show preference for religion over "non-religion" and thus it can be said to be improper for a government body to open with any prayer.  Having said that, I agree that people take offense way too easily and demonstrate that with an in your face attack.

The Declaration of Independence mentions "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the "unalienable Rights" of "all men" that are "endowed by their Creator."  We can assume they meant the Christian God, given their English heritage.  I do not accept that such references support the notion of a "Christian nation," that is, a nation established on a foundation of Christian theology.  (If we are going to use the Declaration of Indepdence as our source, perhaps we should also acknowledge that the reference to the "unalienable rights" of "all men" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the thinking of the founders evidently were not extented by the Creator to "the merciless Indian savages" or black slaves.  More importantly, I think, that was a powerful historical document of considerable importance, but the United States of America was established upon the foundation of the Constitution, which has absolutely no reference whatsoever to God, the Creator, the Almighty, or Jesus.  It does, however, explicitly ban religious oaths for public office and laws pertaining to the establishment of religion.  We can agree to disagree, Walker, but I contend that ours is a great nation, a secular republic, with Christian heritage and a Christian majority.  If we define a nation by its people, it is a predominantly Christian nation.  If we define a nation by its government and laws, the United States is not a Christian nation. 

The issue is Christian prayer at meetings of the Roanoke City Council, and I don't have a problem with that, personally, if it is done by a private citizen such as an invited minister.  I don't think it is proper for members of the City Council in their official capacity at City Council meetings, but that is just my opinion, and of no particular importance.

 "We can agree to disagree, Walker, but I contend that ours is a great nation, a secular republic, with Christian heritage and a Christian majority.  If we define a nation by its people, it is a predominantly Christian nation.  If we define a nation by its government and laws, the United States is not a Christian nation"

I agree with you here. We can agree to disagree, on some things.  Our founding father's never wanted a theocracy. BUT, I don't believe they EVER imagined the ridiculous lawsuits and attacks on our Christian heritage that we see today.  I also dont believe that they would view their words as "living and breathing", with the true meaning ever-changing.  They believed in the rule of Law, not the rule of man.

Anyways, I think this horse has been kicked enough. 

 This is a portion of an opinion piece by Burt Prelutsky, a conservative.  Great stuff.  Loosely associated with this thread and discussion.

"This brings us to atheists and their own brand of hypocrisy and lies. It’s silly enough when they feel they can use logic to disprove the existence of God. But it’s worse when in voicing their angry opposition to organized religion, they begin sounding exactly like the religious zealots they claim to despise.

Still, it’s when they begin blaming all the evils of the world on religion that my own sense of reason and logic kick in. Inevitably, they bring up the Spanish Inquisition, as if the new year we just rang in was 1478. Ask them to make a slightly more contemporary case and they’ll bring up Nazi Germany with a “gotcha” gleam in their eye. While it’s true that Germany had been a traditionally Christian nation, Hitler was neither German nor Christian. He and his followers were pagans. They didn’t march and murder under the cross of Jesus Christ, but under the swastika of Adolph Hitler.

Whenever atheists blame religion for causing most of the world’s mass murders, they merely prove that they’re not only bigots, but ignoramuses. While nobody knows exactly how many millions of innocent people have been butchered in the past 90 years, we do know that the vast majority died at the hands of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, atheists all.

The only exceptions to that rule, of course, are those who have been gassed, beheaded and blown up, by the Muslim faithful. And yet Islam, interestingly enough, is the one religion that doesn’t seem to enrage atheists! Could the reason possibly be that, for all their huffing and puffing about how awful all religions are, even the atheists understand that Jewish and Christian martyrs will die for their beliefs, whereas Islamics will kill you for theirs? "

So true...so, so true.

NOT TRUE... NOT SO SO TRUE.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolf Hitler was a Christian.

Even by your standards Walker this is crap.

 Roenoke, why you get so agitated by history and other's opinions?

 YOU know, and every serious historian knows that, without a doubt, Hitler was NOT a Christian.  Don't degrade yourself any further by openly lying about it.  Germany was a Christian nation, as we are (you like that), but Hitler was indeed a lunatic Pagan.  Ever heard of a thing called propaganda?...surely you have, you regurgitate enough of it. 

Another shining example of how you lefties want to re-write history to fit your warped world view. 

I noticed you didn't protest much about the other atheist mass murderers.