Commissioners create new prayer policy for meetings | Lincoln Times-News

Duston Barto started Monday night’s Board of Commissioners session by becoming the first person to deliver a Muslim invocation at a Lincoln County government meeting.

By the end of the night, commissioners passed a motion that likely ensures he’ll be the last person to open their meetings with worship. After chastising Board of Commissioners Chairman Carrol Mitchem for walking out of the chamber prior to Barto’s speech, Commissioner Alex Patton motioned to scrap the county’s barely two-month-old all-inclusive invocation policy for a moment of silence.

The motion was unanticipated, occurring at the very end of the meeting, and no public comment was allowed. Only Mitchem voted in opposition.

Patton said the decision came as a result of a lack of participation from area churches.
,,,
That policy was enacted shortly after Mitchem told the Times-News almost two weeks earlier that he would “not listen to no Muslim pray.” At the meeting that followed, he said that he shared the board’s goal to “come up with a clean, fair and constitutional policy of giving invocations at board meetings.”
,,,
“I said that I would not listen to a Muslim pray, is that not what I’ve said?” said Mitchem, who also told a television reporter that Patton is a “lunatic.”

“And that’s what I’ve done tonight. I’ve done exactly what I said I was going to do. I’m not going to listen to them pray. So I’ve just done all of my commitment.”

Commissioners create new prayer policy for meetings | Lincoln Times-News

Tell Pickens County School Board to stop praying and get to work - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Members of the Pickens County School Board of Trustees in Easley, S.C., usually open their meetings by praying. They’re considering a change in policy—to bring in local clergy to pray instead. Please contact them now and let them know the only policy change they need is to remove prayer altogether as an official school board function.

The current policy provides for board members to give nonsectarian prayers to start the meeting. Under the new policy, the board would send invitations to give an invocation to clergy members listed in a database of local religious communities. This would allow for sectarian, presumably mostly Christian, prayers.

FFRF has sent the board several letters. An attorney for the board responded only to say the board believed it was in compliance with the law, referencing cases pertaining to prayer at meetings of legislative bodies (not school boards).

Prayer at public school board meetings is different from other government meetings because it takes place in the school context. Two federal appellate courts have ruled that school board prayer is unconstitutional. School board members should be modeling respect for more than 65 years of Supreme Court precedent removing proselytizing and religious ritual from public school functions. Religion in our public schools and on our public school boards is divisive. School board members can pray privately, on their own time and dime.

Tell Pickens County School Board to stop praying and get to work - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Dan Courtney's Secular Invocation Before the Town Board of Greece, NY - YouTube

Atheist Dan Courtney delivers a historic secular invocation before a meeting of the Town Board of Greece, NY on July 15, 2014. Greece is the town at the center of the Greece v. Galloway Supreme Court case, which cleared the way for sectarian prayers at government meetings.

According to the Democrat & Chronicle:

Quoting philosopher Immanuel Kant and drawing on the words of the Declaration of Independence, Dan Courtney made history on Tuesday speaking before the Greece Town Board.

Courtney, past president of the Free Thinkers of Upstate New York, delivered the first atheist invocation at a town board meeting, following the May U.S. Supreme Court decision that said Greece's practice of allowing sectarian prayer was permissible, as long as the town didn't discriminate.

Noting the Declaration's assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Courtney said this central premise of the Founding Fathers "is today, more than ever, under assault. This central pillar of free society; this notion that is deeply heretical to authoritarian culture, proclaims that it is from the people that moral authority is derived."

[,,,]
Outside, on the lawn of the Town Hall, free thinkers, atheists, non-religious, supportive religious and others gathered to decry the Supreme Court decision, and pledge that they will hold the court and governments to the decision's edict against discrimination.

"There is prejudice based on the misguided belief that belief in God is the only path to morality," said Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. "And we need to overcome that prejudice."

Dan Courtney's Secular Invocation Before the Town Board of Greece, NY - YouTube

UPDATE::Americans United Warns Alabama City Not To Discriminate Against Religious Minorities At Local Board Meetings | Americans United

The City of Huntsville, Ala., discriminated against a Wiccan priest when it rescinded his invitation to deliver a prayer before a city council meeting, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says.

Blake Kirk had been scheduled to deliver an official invocation before the Huntsville City Council’s June 26 meeting, but his invitation was suddenly withdrawn just days before he was to speak. News reports said Kirk was uninvited due to community concerns about a Wiccan praying at the meeting.

“When the City of Huntsville denied a Wiccan the right to pray before an official meeting, it took a stand against certain religious viewpoints,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “That decision was plainly unconstitutional.”

AU sent a letter to city officials today, explaining that the U.S. Constitution does not permit local governing boards to bar anyone from giving a pre-meeting prayer on the basis of religion. Nor may anyone be barred from speaking because of the prejudices of the members of that community.

Americans United Warns Alabama City Not To Discriminate Against Religious Minorities At Local Board Meetings | Americans United

Local Wiccan uninvited to give city council invocation due to ‘community fears’ (poll) | WHNT.com

A great example of why it's best if local governments avoid invocations before meetings altogether,,,

WHNT News 19 confirmed with Huntsville City Attorney Peter Joffrion that Blake had been asked to give the invocation Thursday, but when the agenda was released publicly earlier this week, several council members received community concerns about ‘a Wiccan’ being invited to speak.

[,,,]
“I gave the invocation earlier this year, at the time they did not ask me what my faith affiliation was, but when they did this time and I told them ‘Wiccan,’ I was told I was no longer invited to give it,” Blake told WHNT News 19 from his home Thursday night.

WHNT News 19 made several attempts to get comment from city council members and Mayor Tommy Battle, but all questions were directed to city attorney Joffrion Thursday evening.

Local Wiccan uninvited to give city council invocation due to ‘community fears’ (poll) | WHNT.com

UPDATE::Video of my secular invocation | justinvacula.com

I am seriously wondering how council's refusal to amend their "policy" concerning prayer will jive with the recent Greece v. Galloway ruling. But Kudos to Justin for having the tenacity to follow this through.

Council did not allow me (or anyone else) to provide an invocation in place of council’s recurring ‘Almighty God in Heaven’ prayer during meetings, but allowed me to provide a secular invocation during the public comment section. Sadly, council does not want to budge.

While I am dissatisfied with being sequestered to the public comment section rather than being allowed time to speak in place of council’s prayer, I took the opportunity to deliver a secular invocation which included a healthy dose of skepticism and parts of my ‘life philosophy.’

Video of my secular invocation | justinvacula.com

See also:

Utility to bypass Wilkes-Barre council, proceed with natural gas pipeline project in Brookside

But there were no fireworks during the secular invocation delivered by Justin Vacula, spokesperson for the NEPA Freethought Society, in response to the prayer at the beginning of the public meeting.

Vacula, 25, of Exeter, asked to give the invocation in place of the Judeo-Christian prayer, but was told he could deliver it during the public comment period in which speakers are given five minutes to address council.

“As we gather, we are reminded that although we have differences, we are linked by our common humanity,” he said in the invocation that lasted approximately four minutes.

Vacula said he might give an invocation regularly at the meetings. “We’ll see how it goes. If there are other matters to present, maybe I’ll present those matters,” he said.

Activist Justin Vacula speaking up again through ‘secular invocation’ at Wilkes-Barre City Council meeting - Times Leader

I have been following Justin's activism since November of last year. As we both are Pennsylvania residents (opposite sides of the state) some of what he writes about does impact the State as a whole. As a fellow atheist I try and support the cause in whatever way I am able too and his recent battle with Wilkes-Barre City Council not only has local and regional implications, but also state and national as it falls under the guise of the Greece v. Galloway ruling.

Justin Vacula wants to talk with the members of Wilkes-Barre City Council, but he doesn’t think they’re listening.

Vacula, 25, said he plans to take another shot at capturing the council’s attention Thursday, when he reads a “secular invocation” during the public comment period of its next meeting.

The invocation, he said, will be offered as an alternative to the Christian prayer traditionally given at the opening of meetings and will not be intended to offend or insult any religious individuals or their beliefs.

“It’s going to be inclusive, and something that applies to everyone,” said Vacula, the leader of an area group that promotes atheism.

[,,,]
Councilman Tony George said Vacula’s complaint is the first he has heard regarding the prayer during his three years on the council.

[,,,]
At this time, he said, all the members of the City Council identify as Christians, so they chose a Christian prayer to open their meetings.

“If someone from the council wanted to add something else to it, that’s also fine,” he said.

Still, since he began voicing his concerns at meetings in 2013, Vacula said, the council has been steadfast in dismissing him.

“They really haven’t budged on the matter at all,” he said.

The reason they haven't budged is that they have a very narrow view of what is acceptable under the law as compared to what they should be doing in representing their constituents. If one were to take a quick glance, it would appear as if Christian privilege rules the day. A viewpoint that is prevalent in the comments:

"This idiot is at it again? He's not an Activist, he's a P.I.T.A."

"*SHRUG * ..... I find it amusing that he spends so much of his time fighting against something he says does not exist"

"This fellow's mission is as self-righteous and attention-seeking as fanatical fundamentalist religious zealots who try to force their particular beliefs on others in the name of their belief,,,"

Activist Justin Vacula speaking up again through ‘secular invocation’ at Wilkes-Barre City Council meeting - Times Leader

Secular Invocation Delivered at Wheaton City Council Meeting

Last night, at a meeting of the Wheaton City Council (the city that’s home to evangelical hotspot Wheaton College), Ted Utchen delivered a secular invocation just before the start of the meeting (which is now when invocations are usually held).

Secular Invocation Delivered at Wheaton City Council Meeting

So Ted "the Cuban-Canadian Senator from Texas" Cruz is a bit confused

,,, as usual.  Despite his claim that, ",,,Senate Democrats are going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment," we have this occurring in Virginia: "Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway,,, which cleared the way for sectarian prayer at public meetings, Roanoke County Supervisor Al Bedrosian announced his intention to institute a policy that would bar any non-Christian invocations at county meetings."

So which is it Mr. Crazy Pants, are you and your friends in the Reich attempting to abolish First Amendment protections by way of what is occurring in Virginia? Or are you delusional and hyperbolic by taking a piece of Democrat led legislation and twisting it through your lens of a theocratic Oligarchy to remove First Amendment protections in your own right?

First, S. J. Res. 19 and what "I'm so oppressed" Cruz had to say.

“I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped. "Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority to regulate political speech. Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done."

Cruz was referring to a proposed constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would reverse recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating campaign finance limits, including Citizens United and McCutcheon. Schumer said the Senate would vote this year on the constitutional amendment, which seeks to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Citizens United decision in an election year.

The text of the amendment gives Congress the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections." Cruz said that 41 Democrats signed on to what he characterized as an all-out effort to "repeal the First Amendment."

"It explicitly says, 'nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.' So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn't say the same thing about the freedom of speech, it doesn't say the same thing about religious liberty," he said. "What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you're saying things that government finds inconvenient."

Cruz does get one thing right, this Resolution is in response to Citizens United/McCutcheon and will, if enacted, regulate the amount corporations and wealthy individuals can spend [and raise] to support and oppose candidates. What Cruz ignores, as noted by Chuck Schumer, is the balance SJ 19 is attempting to return to the political system.

SJ 19 speaks of:  (a) political equality for all, and protecting the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes [at both the State and Federal level]; (b) the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal [and State] elections: and (c) placing limits on contributions to candidates for nomination for election,,,the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.  It does not speak about limiting free speech, "unless a pastor also runs a super PAC, it would not affect his life all that much, much less “muzzle” him."

You see, in the mind of Ted Cruz it okay for corporations and billionaires to buy elections under Citizens United as a means to usher in an oligarchy. Yet limiting this activity, which will effectively destroy our democracy, is somehow violates the First Amendment rights of the ministers in attendance, "muzzle each and every one of you."  In the words of Mark Udall (D-N.M.), the amendment sponsor, "[e]lections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas."

So how exactly does the above relate to the situation in Virginia?  Well they are both variants of First Amendment issues (freedom of religion, religious expression or establishment of religion).  Cruz is emphatically stating the Dems are trying to repeal (which they are not); while little, big-man in Virginia is demonstrating Christian entitlement. (Something if one reads Kagan's dissent in Greece v. Galloway she warned against; the majority religion pushing aside all minority beliefs.)

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.

[,,,]
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

[,,,]
If a non-Christian wished to pray during a meeting under his idea for the prayer policy, Bedrosian said, he or she would be able to do so during the allotted time for citizen comment.

“I think America, pretty much from founding fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”

And,

Reached Friday for comment, Bedrosian stuck with his original comments. He was asked again how he would respond to a non-Christian’s request to offer the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meetings.

“I would say no,” he said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”

So I sit here shaking my head at these conflicting views of the First Amendment issues as represented by members of the right side of the aisle.  Both are Republicans but yet they can not agree on what is occurring in the grand scheme of things.  So I ponder,,,

After Supreme Court prayer decision, Satanist offers his own prayer - Los Angeles Times

I'm not quite sure yet whether I agree 100% with Greaves on some points he has chosen to publicize: I do quietly support him. But I feel that has to do with the fact that I am not an "in-your-face" type person. I'm not a bold person. That aside, I absolutely love his "prayer" (maybe he could have left off the "Hail Satan" part, but that's just me.)
__
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a town board in upstate New York, and by extension, governmental bodies everywhere, to begin official meetings with a Christian prayer.

"Ceremonial prayer," the court said, is not unconstitutional. It is merely the continuation of a long American tradition, practiced by Congress and dozens of state legislatures, and is intended to "invoke divine guidance" and place governmental institutions in a "solemn and deliberative frame of mind."

[,,,]
Or, for heaven's sakes, Satanists.

After all, they, too, consider themselves a religion. And who is to say otherwise?

Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves was only too happy to compose a prayer.

[,,,]
Greaves was game. Here is what he sent:
_
"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan."
_
What the heck. That's a prayer that could work for a legislative body anywhere--in the Massachusetts town of Heaven Heights, the Michigan town of Hell, or maybe even in Greece.

After Supreme Court prayer decision, Satanist offers his own prayer - Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

I am still digesting the ruling of the court and the numerous outside opinions (200+ articles and counting). I "understand" the ruling - the role of "ceremonial prayer - I do not agree with it. All "prayer" needs to be eliminated from public governmental functions. But it opens another issue within itself, that of public monuments on governmental properties, are they the "same" issue or different?

That being said,,,

The article didn't quite answer the question posed, but raised some interesting concerns: "In trying both to forbid official censorship and to maintain the secular ideal of public neutrality, the court has invited a competitive free-for-all, enabling groups to offer tit-for-tat expressions of deeply held but deeply opposed beliefs, some analysts say."

__

Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled that sectarian content is permissible within America’s longstanding tradition of public invocations and official prayer, other Americans, including Satanists and secular humanists, are hoping to use the ruling to make a case for their own public prayers at the start of official government gatherings.
Related Stories

One outcome of Monday’s ruling is to raise the stakes in the nation’s ongoing culture war over the place of religion in modern public life, opening a proverbial Pandora’s box when it comes to the proper theological parameters for official religious expression, many legal observers say.

[,,,]
But scholars note that Monday’s ruling reveals an ongoing tension between the secular ideals of tolerance and neutrality in the public sphere and the hard-edged religious beliefs of certain faiths. Instead of fostering tolerance, they say, it may have added fuel to the flames of a culture war that continues to rage.

“Particularly in light of the still-hazy standards for judging the appropriateness of prayer at legislative sessions, as well as the Supreme Court's insistence that the prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, it seems quite likely that secularists, members of fringe religious groups, and perhaps even Satanists will begin clamoring for the microphone,” e-mails B. Jessie Hill, professor and dean at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

Indeed, after Monday’s ruling, the American Humanist Association announced it would launch a program to provide resources for local secularists seeking to join the legislative prayer practice in their communities. (Glen Beck's The Blaze had this to say concerning the AHA program.)

[,,,]
Still, Monday’s decision contains a subtle but significant contradiction, legal scholars say. On one hand, the Supreme Court clearly stated that government officials may not censor the content of official religious expressions of a civic community. (If I remember my case law this is referring to the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers ruling A case that ruled that ceremonial prayer to open the legislative sessions was constitutional. But the trouble with prayer, since none can deem beforehand what prayer is acceptable, you have no control over what the prayer giver will say.)

“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech,” wrote Justice Kennedy. “Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian.”

On the other hand, just after saying the government could not censor the conscience of a prayer-giver, Kennedy seemed to go on to do just that, offering specific theological parameters for official government-permitted prayers, many legal observers note. He warned that certain kinds of invocations, especially those that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” might run afoul of the Constitution.
__
It is interesting to note the contrasting opinions between David Niose, legal director at the American Humanist Association and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. They are almost reversed of what you would think them to be.

Supreme Court's prayer ruling: Does it allow Satanists' invocations, too? - Yahoo News

Updated::Hindu Prayer Interrupted In Senate By Christians - YouTube

I believe this is what Gandhi was referring to when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." SCOTUS didn't get it and neither does the Reich. It is blatantly obvious by this display that "prayer" should NOT be allowed at government functions, they meant Christian only, as defined by them. I wonder if a Catholic priest had got up and said the Hail Mary, what would the evangelicals had done? [This incident occurred in 2012 but highlights what Greece v. Galloway is all about.]

This is the diversity that Kagan was referring to in her dissent:

As Kagan wrote in her dissent, "the Town of Greece should lose this case" because "the invocations given -- directly to those citizens -- were predominantly sectarian in content." The dissent went on to explain that the prayers before the town meetings in Greece went beyond what the majority opinion called "a benign acknowledgment of religion's role in society." In the dissent's view, it was not the prayer per se that crossed the constitutional line, but the fact that the prayers "repeatedly invoked a single religion's beliefs." Prayers included a discussion of "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross" and "the plan of redemption that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ."

Hindu Prayer Interrupted In Senate By Christians - YouTube

Updated 12:38 AM 5/8/2014:: I did a bit more digging yesterday AM concerning this video. Initially I came up with the date of 2012 based on when it was uploaded but that didn't sound right after going through my archive. I think I may have found the proper dating Senate Prayer Led by Hindu Elicits Protest::Associated Press, Friday, July 13, 2007. Although a bit older than I thought, it still highlights the turmoil surrounding prayer at government "functions."

Prayer before Saginaw Council meeting challenged by 'Freedom from Religion' organization | MLive.com

Former city Councilman Norman Braddock, who resigned his position on Monday, Feb. 17, to seek state office, said he is less apt to consider the issue of prayer at City Council meetings since an "outside group" is bringing the concern forward, and not a city official or group of city residents.

"For me it's a non-issue," Braddock said. "We've got much more important things to be concerned about than prayer at a meeting. We don't want to get distracted by outside influences who are on a mission to take God out of government."

Braddock said, in his time on City Council, no one has ever voiced any concerns to him about prayer at city meetings.

[,,,]
Browning said he is split on the issue. On one hand, he sees the value of the traditional prayer or invocation. On the other, the mayor said he does not want anyone to be excluded.

"I certainly don't want to offend anybody," Browning said. "We really work hard to engage all our citizens. We can run a City Council meeting without it, but it's kind of been a tradition that City Council does."

[,,,]
Hanley said he has never received any complaints about the county body starting its meetings with a prayer. He said that the board would be guided by future legal decisions, like a pending U.S. Supreme Court case regarding prayers at public meetings in the town of Greece, N.Y.

Prayer before Saginaw Council meeting challenged by 'Freedom from Religion' organization | MLive.com

“We’ve Already Excluded the Atheists, Right?” | Center for Inquiry

CFI also argued, in agreement with the Second Circuit, that there is a significant difference between local governmental bodies and state legislatures. If you want your zoning petition approved, would you refuse to participate in the town council’s prayer? Clearly, at the local level, there is an element of coercion that is not present in Congress or state legislatures. Therefore, at a minimum, Marsh should be limited to its facts.

We did not expect the plaintiffs’ attorney, Douglas Laycock, to spend his time championing the rights of the nonreligious. After all, he is there to win a case. But it seems to me he did not have to go out of his way to throw atheists under the bus. The question about excluding atheists from consideration arose in the context of a discussion about whether any type of prayer practice would please people of all groups, whatever their religion or lack of religion. Laycock, knowing that he could probably not get a Court majority to eliminate the prayer practice entirely, decided to take the angle that you only have to please the majority of people. Only the majority of people have to be treated equally.

Oh, great, so the Establishment Clause was intended not to protect minority rights, but rather the sentiments of the majority. You know, all these years, I had that backward, Doug. Thank for straightening me out.

“We’ve Already Excluded the Atheists, Right?” | Center for Inquiry