Fredericksburg’s Assault On Christianity
By Greg L | 19 March 2008 | National Politics, Virginia Politics | 51 Comments
This has to be one of the strangest legal cases in Virginia. The Fredericksburg City Council gets threatened that if it continues to allow Councilman Hashmel Turner to invoke the name of Jesus Christ when he gives the traditional prayer before the City Council meets, the ACLU will sue the city. The Council immediately suffers a collective loss of bladder control and passes an ordinance that “only non-sectarian” prayers will be permitted. Councilman Turner sits out of the rotation for giving prayers for two years while his First Amendment case works through the system, which is now at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Prohibiting someone from invoking the name of Jesus Christ in a prayer, which is not a merely optional element for evangelical Christians, is clearly the prohibition of the free exercise of religion that the above First Amendment of the Constitution is supposed to prevent. Instead of attempting to protect the Constitution, the ACLU here is actively trying to undermine it. Yeah, I know, this is hardly news.
If the City of Fredericksburg (and the ACLU) somehow manages to prevail here, this will effectively outlaw any public official from mentioning the name of Jesus Christ within the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit, which includes all of Virginia. Such a decision would generate widespread public outrage across vast swaths of Virginia, and across the nation, and clearly cement the agenda of the ACLU with an active attempt to destroy Christianity rather than having anything at all to do with the Bill of Rights. My expectation is that this will fail, and that the free exercise of faith will continue to be free of government interference, giving another well deserved beating to the public image of the ACLU and those inclined to cave under their threats.
Watch this case — it could very easily rocket right out of obscurity. The impact on Fredericksburg politics already looks like this is going to continue to be a major campaign issue for years to come, and has the potential to spread to most of the Commonwealth.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
51 Comments
Views: 750
Loading ...
Here is easier solution. Just don’t have a prayer at beginning of City Council meeting. If individual members decides that he needs to pray before city council meeting, he/she can do it before meeting officially starts.
“prohibiting the free exercise therof”
I’d say that solution is absolutely Unconstitutional.
I’d say it’s not. No one is prohibiting him from practicing his religion outside his work as government official. This is “state sponsored prayer” because from reading the Article, this is prayer that done when meeting commences therefore making it “City of Fredericksburg” so ACLU has valid point. If Mr. Turner came in 5 minutes before the meeting and said a short prayer at his seat or led a prayer circle in his office before or after the meeting with anyone who wanted to attend, I would be joining you in telling ACLU to shove it.
The ACLU is pushing this all around the country. A story in the Post Magazine some weeks ago coverd this nonsense. Again our elected representatives fail to take a strong stand at the onset, and vigrously defend the Constitution against those who would manipulate it to serve themselves. We shold offer no compromise, only a seat outside if the exercise of our freedom offends them.
I wonder how people would feel if there were a muslim or a hindu on the Fredericksburg City Council and that individual insisted on his or her prayers being said at the beginning of a council meeting? I think many people would be howling like stuck pigs.
I agree with Thumper’s solution. We are guaranteed freedom from religion also. America is great because we don’t have a one size fits all religion.
It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. C’mon, the text of the First Amendment can’t be all that hard to comprehend!
They can howl all they want as long as it is outside the room. There is no compulsion to join along. There is no support that the state has established an official religion for all to be compelled to follow. The person delivering the prayer is not on the payroll to deliver a prayer written by the government. It does not prevent anyone from practicing their religion either. It allows those who wish to partake in the spiritual heritage of our Nation to do so. Our spiritual heritage is Christian-Judaea.
Emerald Eyes,
I once saw an interview on local news with the Principal of a high school in Takoma Park, Md. He explained that they problems they had
with “prayer in school” was not his choosing and that 25 different
religions were represented there. The Rastafarians would pray for a
good marijuana crop and the Haitians who practiced VooDoo would
pray for someone to die who had angered them. I suppose we could
all sit down on the floor and shout “Nam YoHo Rengye Kyho” and
we’d all be off the hook, but I guess I’d be the Lone Ranger and
say, “Jesus Christ, how did this happen?”
Greg,
This is different, unless you can confirm differently, this is government official leading official prayer sponsored by the City Council. This is not a private citizen giving a sermon at his church or even holding prayer vigil at local park who happens to be government official.
Citizen 12,
I disagree Founding Fathers were massively influenced some of Christian faiths they held. Country has Judeo-Christian history as many of people who have come before us were Christian but founding fathers were either very reserved Christian or in case of Jefferson and others, Deists.
Why start meeting off with a prayer? Why must those who pray before doing government work must do it in front of everyone and make sure everyone knows it by adding it to minutes? Is God not going to bless meeting because it was not done publically? I believe God warned in bible about those who “preach and pray publically”
Will the ACLU “screen” the verbiage of the prayers if a muslim prayed or would that be politically incorrect?
So ridiculous to waste time on this issue.
:( ….just wondering the preference of the city council, but of course, their preference has no significance. Soon enough, the ACLU will petition to remove the American flag from the chambers because it might be offensive to a Muslim-American, Hispanic-American or some other “partial American.”
Political correctness…and in this sense, I’m talking about restricting the preference of 90% to satisfy any one of those within the remaining 10%…is going to be the undoing of our nation. We work so hard within this country to be politically correct that in so doing, we give our rights and freedoms from the majority to the minority. For example, public facilities, even schools go to extreme measures to ensure that religious facilities are nondenominational and available to everyone, yet we construct special facilities, e.g., foot baths, to accommodate a specific religious minority.
Another example has been brewing within the national news here lately: while those attempting to follow the politically correct model not to offend a single person within any racial or ethnic group Jeremiah Wright’s racist/anti-American preaching (which I am led to believe is commonplace within black churches) is allowed to flourish, without even condemnation, much less cessation. Political correctness leads us to affirmative action and entrance standard quotas to ensure the inclusion of people from all races, yet minority institutions are increasingly exclusionary.
To prohibit the use of Jesus Christ in a prayer of willing participants is no better than to require same. However, it’s politically correct to deny the majority in favor of the minority.
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080319/EDITS/54393774
“Columnist: Destroying American culture”
This article coincides with all of this nonsense!
If the courts decide wrongly and suppress free religious speech. Then engage in civil disobedience, until the judges are replaced or restricted by the legislature - as they should be.
Thumper,
The majority of the founding fathers were not only Christians but active Christians. Even Patrick Henry said that this country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You are a victim of rewritten history.
I have never understood why ANY political assembly is opened with prayer. Just as have never understood why certain football teams pray before a game, although that’s different. God, please let us win this game, I guess is legitimate. I don’t understand how God can cope with all the requests thrown at him from all directions anyway.
Krutis: Even if you don’t understand, you’d be wise not to mock.
Supreme Court interpretations have held that people are protected FROM religion also. How else would you explain the Madalyn Murray O’Hair ruling? If laymen were allowed to interpret the Constitution, there would be little need for the Supreme Court. It obviously isn’t just a matter of reading comprehension.
It would be very easy to have a prayer meeting off the record before the council met officially, out of respect for those who are offended by the opening prayers. People could also pray privately during a moment of silence. I have never figured out why so many people are opposed to silent prayer. Could it be that the intended audience isn’t God, but those mortals viewing the council meeting?
I also do not understand why there is prayer before any political assembly or public gathering. I am not Christian and it infuriates me that I am forced to bow my head in the name of someone else’s religious beliefs. I actually don’t bow my head, but I am still expected to participate. Prayers only belong in the appropriate house of worship, where the participants have chosen to gather. To those who argue otherwise, what American values are you fighting for?
By the way, if you are arguing for a Christian nation, Hispanics are extremely conservative Christians. As a group, they certainly agree that we should start public gatherings with Christian prayers.
So Sara, you were “forced” to bow your head in the name of someone else’s religious beliefs? Hmmmm, that’s very odd, I’ve never seen or heard of that before. Now, I have heard of being respectful of others’ beliefs….that’s not uncommon at all….in fact, most of us were raised that way. I’m afraid I wouldn’t be “forced” very easily.
…and Krutis, so you don’t understand about prayer before political assemblies and football games? Let’s just face it, none of us was put on this Earth to understand everything. However, I believe the short answer is that those gathered must want it, wouldn’t you think? Of course, if there are those present who wish not to participate, that’s fine, but it’s good manners to be quietly respectful of your associates and their beliefs, huh?
Krutis said on 20 Mar 2008 at 10:10 am:
I have never understood why ANY political assembly is opened with prayer.
It is to give thanks to a “higher power” (GOD) for what he has given each and everyone of us.
Sara Sota said on 20 Mar 2008 at 11:20 am:
I also do not understand why there is prayer before any political assembly or public gathering. I am not Christian and it infuriates me that I am forced to bow my head in the name of someone else’s religious beliefs.
WHO is forcing you? Have you made a formal complain about being FORCED?
You see Sara…if you are an “atheist”…that is a belief. So if you are saying Christians cannot have a prayer in public, you shouldn’t get your way either (because that would impose your belief system on Christians). Also, maybe the illegal alien hispanics (who you say are Christian) should actually READ their Bibles and learn that illegal alien activity goes against what the Bible says!
Christian prayer before any public meeting began with the successful foundation of the civilization of English-speaking peoples in 1607 with the dedication ceremony at Cape Henry. It continued with the first meeting of any elected body - the Virginia General Assembly - in the church in Jamestown in 1619.
Christian prayer preceded the meetings for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention.
Christian prayer precedes the inauguration of every President - making his promise on a Holy Bible.
And on and on. It seems many folks making comments suffer from a poor public school passing, and ‘presentism’, view of history.
Christian prayer is Virginia and American tradition at least. And short, declarative worship at most for many participants.
999 @ 12:01 - As someone else said: Why pray in public?
In Matthew 6:5 it says: “…and when you pray,you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father, who is in secret: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you”
In Matthew 6:1 it says: “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
This is why I see now reason for prayers before political assemblies.
Then Krutis, understanding how you feel, if I were you, I wouldn’t pray before political assemblies either.
What Krutis said on 20 Mar 2008 at 1:04 pm
You nailed it, Krutis. Thanx!
Old and Krutis…you totally don’t understand what those scriptures are talking about! Those scriptures refer to mindless prayers to “boast” (trying to look good in front of others vice having a genuine prayer from the heart). The scriptures talk about NOT doing this kind of “boasting” prayer.
TP - Didn’t know you were a Bible scholar and interpreter.
Of course those prayers are done to, if not “boast” but show the piety, yes, “trying to look good in front of others” of the speaker AND the listeners. Genuine prayers from the heart, I feel very strongly, should not be public. Praying is a deeply personal act.
So, the muslims that drop to their knees at 1:00 and bow eastward are disingenious? Maybe, they shouild find a private room for that. How in the hell do you know that those council members are not genuinely praying from the heart?! You must have some magical powers. maybe even demonic!
Actually, to a Christian as to most faiths, praying is a communal as well as a private act. Both have their place. For the most part, the communal part is going to be in church, though.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with a short invocation, esp. if that is local tradition. Honestly, we can take this politically correct cr-p way too far. Freedom of religion is, and never was, freedom from religion. The documents from which are government flowed references rights that come from the Creator and our money says “in God we trust.” America has never intended to drive religion entirely out of the public square.
I’ve sat through many military invocations where the chaplain was obviously a different religion than me, but he (or she) did the job in a way that would please all but atheists (who are hard to please, but, as the old expression goes, there are few of them in foxholes, so the military doesn’t worry about them too much). I am not offended by other faiths, and I personally think it’s un-American to be offended by other faiths. To people with no faith, it’s all a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo anyway, so what’s to call the ACLU and sue over? (I was never willing to be angry at ACLU, because I think they do good sometimes, but this is one place where I think they just keep barking up the wrong tree.)
As a funny aside, Jewish friend caught something funny in a recent TV ad that I did not catch the first time, and we both had a great laugh over it. There is a Honey Baked Ham ad with a person in an Easter bunny suit. At the end the voiceover says “There’s nothing like a Honey Baked Ham for the holidays.” Okay. But “holidays?” What the heck does that mean? My friend pointed out that even though she herself does not keep kosher, a ham is never finding its way to her table, especially not during Passover! It’s not finding its way to practicing Muslims tables, either. So we both thought it was a hoot that they were afraid to say the E-word, since that is the mainstream holiday for which ham is traditional.
Somehow, this invocation situation sounds like fodder for the writers of South Park and I think that is one topic they have not yet tackled (or attacked, depending on your view).
Thumper: http://70030.netministry.com/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=34628&columnid=3803
The Bible warned of praying publicly like a hypocrite…to pray in a show-off kind of fashion. There is nothing wrong with praying publicly, as long as the person leading the prayer is being humble and is truly speaking to God and not using rhetoric to impress those listening or to push his/her own agenda. I’ve never heard this councilman’s prayers, but if he’s simply asking for the Lord’s guidance in their decisions for the city, I don’t think that’s out of line. And as mentioned in the article, no one is complaining about the councilmen/women who said things like “Heavenly Father” or “Almighty God”, but Turner is being persecuted for saying the phrase “in Jesus name” (which I’m guessing is part of his closing on his prayer).
Krutis: I AM a Bible scholar, and the Patriot hit the nail right on the head.
And, only God knows who is or is not genuine!
Krutis said on 20 Mar 2008 at 2:02 pm:
Praying is a deeply personal act.
Then why have churches or synagogues?
Also, don’t know how many of you have read it, but Dinesh D’Souza wrote a great book “What’s So Great About America” (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-America/dp/0142003018), where he talks about how all the PC people and multiculturalists are actually creating more of a dividing line between people. Instead of showing how we’re all the same, we’re all people, we all want the best for our kids, we all want to live in nice neighborhoods, etc., those folks (i.e. the ACLU) just keep pointing out how all of us are different and how different people are being oppressed because of their differences and how everyone’s a victim, blah blah blah. I know once I’m shown how I’m the same as someone (we like the same music, our kids are the same age, same taste in clothing, whatever), I tend to be much more tolerant of them…and I see their differences, like their cultural heritage, to just be a neat cherry on top of the sundae. I have a friend whose father is an Iranian Jew and his mother is Puerto Rican. This friend and I share similar political leanings, we went to the same college, work at the same company, have similar taste in food, wine, music, and movies. Yet, he looks different than I do (I have northern European heritage), he’s a Reform Jew (I’m a Methodist), and while I was more than happy to get married and have kids, he’s a bit of a committment-phobe who just loves going out on the dating scene. I find his differences fascinating, but its not his differences that make the root of our friendship. It’s our similarities.
And it’s our similarities as Americans that we should embrace, not pick on each other for our differences. To paraphrase Gus in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, apples are different from oranges, but when you get down to it, we’re all just fruit.
Krusty, Krusty, Krusty,
Please don’t take Scripture out of Context. You’ve taken those verses out of the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was getting to the root of our problem - the evil desires of our heart. He was warning about showing “our righteousness” before men. At the same time he was telling us about the condition of the human heart and that it is sinful (self centered). Look at Matthew 5:21-28 for starters. In fact read the whole book of Matthew, you might learn something. Jesus Himself prayed publicly. Look at John chapter 17. The whole chapter is Jesus’ prayer for His disciples which He spoke in their presence publicly. Since we are about to celebrate Resurrection Sunday, look at John 11:41-46 which is Jesus’ public prayer when He raised Lazarus from the dead.
So Krusty are you condeming Jesus?
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Notice how Jesus Christ says “the” (which means…no other options). Period.
999 @ 3:53 - That’s what I wonder too.
This is what happens when conservatives seemingly go to sleep. Where are they? Juan McAmnesty is the republican nominee? Conservatives are either waiting for right reason to wake up, or they’re beaten forever, I can’t decide which one it is.
Patty - How did we get from councilman Turner to Jesus?
I’m not condemning Jesus, nor anyone who believes and prays, however, I don’t see the connection between a city council meeting and religious activities. People on the council who believe, will act accordingly. Those who do NOT believe will still act in a way that they feel is right for them and for the city in question. If The Patriot believes that Jesus is the way; “the” way, that’s fine with me. Surely you don’t want to condemn those who don’t have that belief? We are good guys anyway. Trust me! Maybe there different ways to Nirvana, Utopia, Heaven …..
What I would like to see is one minute of silence before every political meeting; or at least 30 seconds, after the Pledge.
…there ARE different…
Where we really get wacky, too, is where we have schools telling kids (as was the rage a couple years ago) that they cannot give a HS graduation speech that mentions any religious person or deity they wish, even in passing. To me, that’s just nutty. I remember a girl being told she could not mention Jesus a few years ago!
Now that’s an individual speaking, clearly not the establishment of a state religion. Little rebel that I always was, if I’d been in that girl’s position, I’d have given the speech I intended anyway and I’d have said what they didn’t want me to say. Fortunately, I was never in that position and I’m happy for it. As it was, I graduated before political correctness was taken to its most ridiculous extremes. No one even read our graduation speeches before we gave them…
A government meeting is not a church choir meeting. I respect short invocations that are appropriate to the forum and I truly like them. I also think a moment of silence can be very appropriate. There are many forms of non-sectarian prayer. Military chaplains are great at it and are fine examples. Also, where I live, the invocation at public meetings is given by a different pastor or religious leader from the community each time - so far, I’ve wandered in on Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Hispanic evangelical and Jewish rabbi-led invocations. And they were all pretty good.
Krutis said: “What I would like to see is one minute of silence before every political meeting; or at least 30 seconds.”
Krutis, it’s clear that not everyone would like to see the same things that you would….thus, don’t you think that it reasonable for you to maintain that minute (or 30 seconds) of silence, and at the same time, allow those with differing opinions a minute (or 30 seconds) to verbalize, listen to and respond appropriately to the invocation? Sounds to me like quite a reasonable deal!
Now, as Sarah claims, if someone “forces” you to bow your head in the name of someone else’s religious beliefs, Christians would have a problem with that. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the real taaaadooooo here is intolerance of Christianity (the 90 %) “because I (the 10%) don’t believe in that way.”
The best answer is to send the ACLU on a cruise and when it gets into shark infested waters sink the damn thing.
Freedom @ 6:51 - Would you have some folks talking or verbalizing as you say, during the period of silence, because that’s what they prefer? This is getting too ridiculous.
You’ll be happy to know that I’ve had my say, and and I’m outta this thread. Ta ta!
And I am off to buy an Easter ham… from someplace other than Honey Baked!!!
I like it CONVA….in fact, LOVE It!!
Ah, the old victimhood speech. The ACLU is widely known for engaging in a massive campaign to eliminate anything religious from public institutions. Don’t flatter yourself by making this about Christianity, and most definitely do not turn this into “If it weren’t for non-Christians [or minorities - other variations of this line more commonly refer to minorities), we wouldn’t be dealing with this” nonsense either. Take it up with the ACLU, not us!
Besides, for many years, the ACLU did not exist, and Christians have long been to display Christianity in government without anything confronting them. The Constitution couldn’t be more clear on this, and despite this clarity, Christians continued doing this (e.g. school prayers, religious images in official government squares, etc.). Now that some are complaining, notice how more focus is placed on (in this case, religious) minorities as being the cause of this opposition rather than atheism and the ACLU. When I say focus, I am not referring to this blog in specific. I am talking about upset Christians in general.
Do I really care whether some politician invokes God or the Bible? No. I belong to a religious minority group, and it makes no difference to me that Christians do this, but I depise the anger that is directed towards us instead of those who have been chipping away at “Christian America” (remember it was an ATHEIST, not us, who fought prayer in school?).
PS: I know someone will raise a point about how the ACLU is targetting Christians specifically to the exclusion of others. Save your breath; I won’t fall for it. Just be sure to understand that if a religious minority overtakes Christianity in government presence, the ACLU will change its tune to reflect these changes, and fight that new religious majority.
I’m probably too late to post this so any one will read it, but I think the real constitutional issue is about the religious persecution history of the government and state sponsored “Church of England”. That is what the constititution was written to protect American citizens from, mandated state sponsored religious doctrine and the interpretation of that “man-made doctine” as a law to be enforced on all others. That means imposing a style, time and type of prayer, observance rule and government religious law of forced religious behavior on all individuals. The constitution makes it a right for each individual to choose his or her individual religious path without persecution from the government to mandate how and under what legal doctrine it will be done. It is very interesting to me, that when the religious doctrines differ drastically, and every different religious “group” claims its rights to religious practice in public institutions they are doing the equivalent of “smoking in public places, not private places”, causing potential harm on others who choose not to smoke” the parallel is an interesting one in the struggle to have unification of ideology for peace and trust to prevail, while allowing individual difference of opinion. These same laws cannot prevent a people of one religion from taking over your community, your legal framework and your society and making it their own, and you have no legal way to prevent that other than a heavy public and private argument to “convert them”.
Also many of our founding fathers were “Masons” which philosophically found its way into the constitution, primarily the rights of “citizens” are primary and over-ride the rights of government institutions and state sponsored institutions to oppress people. The Masons of the 1770/80’s were extremely tolerant of other religious practices, and still are. The binding and common shared philosophy is one of “group” secrecy about political right and wrong to stop government oppression of the people, a belief in individual rights, shared experience and a code of personal conduct that frankly is universal if you look at the facts. It is the heart and soul of democracy, religion however if you look at historical doctrine is not democratic. Democracy and the constitutional concept of religious freedom, still cannot prevent a foreign force or group from totally dominating your society if it even has minor numbers (especially if it is a religious group, a gender group, a racial group or an ethnic group) that has both the greatest political and social strength in numbers of powerful relationships and control over money. Look at the unbalanced influence of radical Muslim terrorists to shape the governents of the regions they terrorize and control. As I said it only works in principle until the differences and group seperatism leads to conflict and war, then new borders are drawn if to look at the history of the thing. That’s why “Americans” came here and founded these borders to escape the religious practice of the government, but they all pretty much came from the same religion until recently. Now the sitiation is different and these same “groups” are attacking the “protestant” belief system that fled from the “catholic” state sponsered belief system. The constitution was not designed to deal with this new multi-religious, multi-cultural environment. In its inability to deal with this effectively, social engineers have emerged and some real nut bag philosophies and concepts have emerged to destroy and undermine the peace and stability of our society. The Romans and Greeks were destroyed for very similar historical reasons, invasion from cultural, non-homogenous religious groups (Celts, Persians, etc)
Frank, just one question.
What other faiths has the ACLU tried to muzzle? I recall they came to the defense of Islamic expressions of faith at some point, but do not recall an instance of them ever doing anything but try to prohibit Christian expression or promote other non-Christian religious beliefs. My recollection here may not be accurate, but I sure do get the impression that the ACLU is decidedly anti-Christian.
Actually the ACLU has been involved in many cases defending the First Amendment rights of Christians. Many of the cases have involved people whose politics would be wildly to the right of the average ACLU member.
Here is a handy list compiled by someone in the blogosphere, though it only gives examples dating from 1982 to 2004.
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html
But it is easy to find out more recent cases. As for older cases involving Christians, some of them have been the most landmark rulings on religious freedom in the 20th-century history of the US Supreme Court.
None of this should be a surprise.