This vote occured only a few minutes ago. This story was on the DR when the last judge's ruling went against the county and in favor of the ACLU's plaintiff.

The local paper has been innundated with letters to the editor on this topic. Appeal... don't appeal... all the "wisdom" and "discernment" regarding Scripture and the Constitution from people on both sides of the issue.

All that said, since this appeal only goes forward with private donations and not county funds, is that a problem for local taxpayers? I mean, if the plaintiff can be represented by the ACLU, cannot the county receive outside legal aid as well?

I hope you enjoy the tax increase to pay for the lawyers.

Typical politicians.

I'm sure Reverend Steve will make up any shortfall out of his collection plate.

AXE-
That was a big sticking point. The deciding vote (Chairman Dave Plyler) would only vote to proceed if none of the appeals money came from county taxpayers.

I'll ask again, if all appeals funding comes from sources other than local taxpayers, do you have a problem with this appeal going forward? Were the sides reversed, would you have a problem if a plaintiff could enlist outside help?

private funds to be used, i'm all for them taking this up. sounds like an issue that will have to be sorted out one way or the other anyway, and I'm kinda surprised this isn't settled law yet.

the argument that public funds shouldn't be used to fight this kind of thing rings hallow with me anyway. it's an important issue that faces many public officers.

pledge is up next, soon "in God we trust" etc. it should be clarified.

"Appeal... don't appeal... all the "wisdom" and "discernment" regarding Scripture and the Constitution from people on both sides of the issue."

And in America, which is supposed to trump when it comes to public government?

"All that said, since this appeal only goes forward with private donations and not county funds, is that a problem for local taxpayers?"

It depends. Would people feel the same way if the commissioners wanted to face Mecca and pray to Allah?

"the argument that public funds shouldn't be used to fight this kind of thing rings hallow with me anyway. it's an important issue that faces many public officers."

Well...yeah, if they haven't read or don't understand The Constitution.

Same question as the last post: if the fight was for a Muslim prayer, or a Buddhist chant, would you want your tax money to pay for it?

It's for the right and freedom of speech to say a prayer before a council meeting.

Screw the ACLU--friggin communists.

And they shouldn't be allowed to get their fees and costs just for filing a damn suit against the public..

The Congress should change that law--like yesterday.

And this was banning a sectarian prayer.

Dan--if the community is represented by muslims--the council people can start their meetings praying to allah if they want.

So what.

"All that said, since this appeal only goes forward with private donations and not county funds, is that a problem for local taxpayers?"

How would paying for this with private donations be a problem for Taxpayers??

San Diego spent millions against the cross hater (who died of stomach cancer).

And they finally got the feds to step in and declare Mt. Soledad a War Memorial and knocked off the nonsense.

DAN- My understanding of the judge's ruling was that non-sectarian prayer was permissible. It was only when the "in Christ's name" and it turned into a sectarian prayer that the judge had heartburn.

So it's not (necessarily) that the commissioners wanted any one particular prayer (although it's a predominately Christian area here)... it's that they objected to a judge telling a guest HOW they can pray.

"Screw the ACLU--friggin communists."

Yeah...because Civil Liberties are so communistic.

"they shouldn't be allowed to get their fees and costs just for filing a damn suit against the public."

They're filing a suit for the public, making sure the smallest and weakest get a seat at the table as well.

"this was banning a sectarian prayer"

Which means a religious prayer.

"if the community is represented by muslims--the council people can start their meetings praying to allah if they want."

What you're saying is the majority religion should be the state religion. That's capricious, not to mention moronic.

"Forsyth County Board of Commissioners"

Haven't read the decision that's being appealed, of course, so can't comment on the original judge's reasoning.

Good for Plyler though, regarding public funding.
Nothing wrong with the appeal in and of itself.
It may be an important issue, Somoco, but I think Plyler's stance on the funding is sound.

This is a county issue regarding prayer before a board meeting?
Not sure how much of a Constitutional issue one could make, Danforth.

"It was only when the "in Christ's name" and it turned into a sectarian prayer that the judge had heartburn."

Good. I hope it's the same heartburn he'd get if in was "in Allah's name" or "in Zeus's name".

"it's that they objected to a judge telling a guest HOW they can pray."

No, the judge told them how they can pray on the public's time and the public's dime. Big difference.

#11 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"What you're saying is the majority religion should be the state religion."

Can't really get on board with that.
While precedent has its place, and its power, I really don't see the slippery slope you've envisioned.
This isn't about dictating a "state religion".
It's a prayer at the start of a county board meeting.

"Not sure how much of a Constitutional issue one could make, Danforth."

Something about the establishment of Religion...?

"It's for the right and freedom of speech to say a prayer before a council meeting."

They can pray all they want, Murphy. Silently. Without putting on a show. Or maybe the show is the point, eh?

"It's a prayer at the start of a county board meeting."

On my tax dollars.

Again, would you be comfortable if they prostrated themselves toward Mecca before every board meeting?

"On my tax dollars."

Danforth, my tax dollars have been spent on things far less innocuous than a prayer at a county board meeting.
When they are, I'm moved to speak against it.

But if the board wants to spend 30 seconds on a prayer, I'm not the least bit concerned about it.
Not praying isn't going to save my tax dollars, and praying isn't going to waste my tax dollars.

Regarding "establishment of Religion", some people, clearly yourself, view this sort of prayer as such an establishment.
I don't. I see it as a prayer, no more, no less.
I don't see it as a violation of the Constitution, or of civil rights.

Your Muslim hypothetical is understandable.
But I don't think it's really relevant to this story or realistic, so I'm going to skip it.

"Danforth, my tax dollars have been spent on things far less innocuous than a prayer at a county board meeting. "

So now right and wrong is based on relativism?

"Not praying isn't going to save my tax dollars, and praying isn't going to waste my tax dollars."

If the commissioners are paid by tax dollars, or the room is rented with tax dollars, or the room is heated or lit with tax dollars, it IS a waste of tax dollars.

"I see it as a prayer, no more, no less."

So then do you believe the taxpayers would have no problem with rotating the prayer, to honor ALL their taxpaying citizens, and not just the Christians?

"Your Muslim hypothetical is understandable.
But I don't think it's really relevant to this story or realistic"

Then you're missing the point. If we allow the majority to dictate the state deity, we're agreeing to subject ourselves to whatever majority exists at the time. Right now, it dovetails with my beliefs. But I wouldn't like it if elected officials wanted to pray to Mecca or do a Wiccan ceremony on public time, so I can't -- in good conscience -- agree with it just because this particular group happens to agree with me.

"So now right and wrong is based on relativism? "

To an extent, yes. Isn't it usually?
If PETA rails against Obama for swatting a fly, I think it's ridiculous.
If they rail against Vick for dog torture, I think it's appropriate.

If there's a law forcing Forsyth County board members to undergo full immersion baptism just to make sure that Jesus is cool with the minutes of the last board meeting, that's wrong.
(I know, ridiculously extreme example)
But a prayer before a meeting? Nothing wrong with it.

So, yes, of course it's relative. In this case. I don't have a problem with relativism here.

"If the commissioners are paid by tax dollars, or the room is rented with tax dollars, or the room is heated or lit with tax dollars, it IS a waste of tax dollars."

I still say it's a 30-second prayer, and the room was being using for the meeting already. Sorry, but I just don't get worked up about it.

"Then you're missing the point."

No, not missing the point, you and I just have different perceptions of what is acceptable.
As I said earlier, I don't the the same slippery slope you do.

It depends. Would people feel the same way if the commissioners wanted to face Mecca and pray to Allah?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-22 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think I've seen an adequate response to this post.

"To an extent, yes. Isn't it usually?"

No, ideally. That type of thinking leads to believing we don't torture, because our torture isn't as bad as what others do.

"But a prayer before a meeting? Nothing wrong with it."

Wait. You already admitted a Muslim prayer would be problematic. You seem to be proving my point.

"I just don't get worked up about it."

I'm worked up by the concept. Why should the public dime pay for a secular process?

Oh. I see. It was blithely NOT addressed here:

Your Muslim hypothetical is understandable.
But I don't think it's really relevant to this story or realistic, so I'm going to skip it.

Posted by TheTom at 2010-02-22 10:07 PM

The shorter Tom and Taliban: I'm OK with theocracy as long as it's MY theocracy.

#21 | POSTED BY BETELG
"I don't think I've seen an adequate response to this post."

Honestly, I don't have one. Not sure how I'd feel about it
But as I said, I don't feel it's a realistic hypothetical.
Danforth's principle is correct, I think, but I see the hypothetical as the bottom of a perceived slippery slope that I don't see.

"The shorter Tom and Taliban: I'm OK with theocracy as long as it's MY theocracy."

Exactly my point.

And since I wouldn't be comfortable with an Eastward prostration, I'd feel hypocritical if I thought it was okay as long as it was a Christian prayer.

"I see the hypothetical as the bottom of a perceived slippery slope that I don't see."

IIRC, when a predominantly Muslim Union local wanted to trade a "traditional" holiday for a "Muslim" holiday, all hell broke loose on this blog.

It all depends on who's ox is being gored.

TheTom-
re:

Honestly, I don't have one. Not sure how I'd feel about it
But as I said, I don't feel it's a realistic hypothetical.

That proves Danforth's point. You are fine with theocracy as long as it's your religion. You feel as the Taliban do.

Your position is in direct opposition to the Constitution, and is merely the other side of the Islamist coin.

#23 | POSTED BY BETELG
"I'm OK with theocracy as long as it's MY theocracy."

Betel, it's not remotely my theocracy.
I'll rail against Christian excess with the best of them, but I don't see this as "excess", I see it as a brief prayer among like-minded boardmembers before a meeting.

In any case, Danforth and I are having a civil disagreement.
Without any Taliban references.

re:
Danforth's principle is correct, I think, but I see the hypothetical as the bottom of a perceived slippery slope that I don't see.

#24 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-02-22 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's telling that you would only uphold a principle in the case that you felt threatened. That makes it NOT a principle to you, but a convenience to be invoked at your leisure.

" I see it as a brief prayer among like-minded boardmembers before a meeting. "

But you see a problem if their like-mindedness was Muslim, or Buddhist.

Don't you see a problem with that?

re: In any case, Danforth and I are having a civil disagreement.

I agree, and it's nice to see.

What if the county commissioners decided to say a prayer to Allah?

Your "principled" position would change?

I admire the politeness of your conversation, but even in a very polite conversation someone is often really, really wrong and has nothing but clay and bullshit beneath their feet.

That would be you, in this case.

Religion starts just as many fights as it ever did.

#22 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"I'm worked up by the concept. Why should the public dime pay for a secular process?"

I understand you're worked up about it. I'm not.
You mean a "non-secular" process, but the public dime is paying for a meeting, not the prayer. And I understand your issue with that, I just don't agree with you on the egregiousness of it.

"You already admitted a Muslim prayer would be problematic."

I admitted I didn't know how I'd feel about it. Hadn't really considered it, and Betel brought up a good point, so I answered honestly.

Given a few minutes, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
It's just a prayer, as far as I'm concerned.
That's the main issue for me. Just a prayer, not a policy, not a violation.
If all members of the board are okay with it, then that's fine.
If on the other hand, a member of the board objected for personal reasons, then out of a sense of fairness, the board should make other arrangements.

Where you and I differ is in whether or not the prayer itself is wrong under the circumstances, i.e., at a government meeting.

Religion starts just as many fights as it ever did.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-22 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, which is in large part why the founding fathers did not establish a theocracy, and utilized Enlightenment ideas in the formation of a secular, functioning state above the personal religious proclivities of the population.

It's part of what made the US exceptional.

Where you and I differ is in whether or not the prayer itself is wrong under the circumstances, i.e., at a government meeting.

#33 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-02-22 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You got to the heart of the matter like greased lightening!

Have you ever been described as "precocious" or "gifted"?

You really should be tested.

"but the public dime is paying for a meeting, not the prayer."

If the prayer is part of the meeting, they're paying for the prayer as well.

"If all members of the board are okay with it, then that's fine."

Three of this seven were against it.

"Where you and I differ is in whether or not the prayer itself is wrong under the circumstances, i.e., at a government meeting. "

I believe since people wouldn't be okay with just ANY prayer, no prayer should be offered.

Unless of course, you think church time should be occupied with governmental business.

#29 | POSTED BY BETELG
"It's telling that you would only uphold a principle in the case that you felt threatened. That makes it NOT a principle to you, but a convenience to be invoked at your leisure."

Threatened? By what?
What is the principle at stake here?

I don't mind the discussion, but your tone seems prosecutorial, and I'm just having a talk, right?
Not about religion, or principles, or theocracy, but about whether or not a simple prayer, of whatever faith, is appropriate, at a government meeting.
Danforth (and I'm assuming you) obviously feels very strongly that this is absolutely wrong, and that's fine, I respect that.
I'm not trying to prove him wrong, or prove anything one way or the other..

But are we having honest discourse, or are we playing at "gotcha"?
If we're going to play "gotcha", let's move on to better things.

"You got to the heart of the matter like greased lightening!
Have you ever been described as "precocious" or "gifted"?"

Yes, and thanks for asking.

I can think of better ways to waste the court's time. Perhaps garnishing Jackass' wages for overdue child support payments.

"So then do you believe the taxpayers would have no problem with rotating the prayer, to honor ALL their taxpaying citizens, and not just the Christians?" - #19 DAN

It's an open invitation for any preacher who wishes to offer prayer. And to my knowledge, no preacher has been told they can't offer a prayer. The commissioners had never told a preacher what they could pray about, how to pray, or to whom.

I see it as a brief prayer among like-minded boardmembers before a meeting.

you act as if thee are private citizens meeting their own private factory, they are not.

they are publicly elected to represent each, every and all; and they do they're bidding on the same property, i.e., the public's.

it is not their time or their minds and hearts they are there for. not at any second, minute or place.

now, if they want to get together before work....

"And since I wouldn't be comfortable with an Eastward prostration, I'd feel hypocritical if I thought it was okay as long as it was a Christian prayer." - #25 DAN

When you say not being comfortable, how do you mean?

It's one thing to disagree with the speaker/praying person in terms of their faith. Heck, I suspect an athiest would disagree with ANY prayer to a deity.

Do we have the "right" to only be subject to those things with which we fully agree with or fully support? Nope. That doesn't contitute tyranny on the part of the majority.

I wouldn't agree with a Muslim. I'd likely have my head bowed (so as not to make a scene with my "protest")... and simply use that prayer time to pray silently in a manner I was accustomed to. No big deal to me, anyway. I suspect that's what the Muslim would do during my opening prayer as well.

Now, if the commissioners dictated that all prayers must be offered in Christ's name, then I could see a problem there.

so any activity they do is "state" supported activity... so i guess they'll have to pass the Lemon test.

When you say not being comfortable, how do you mean?
It's one thing to disagree with the speaker/praying person in terms of their faith. Heck, I suspect an athiest [sic]...

hello? there are plaintiffs here you know (regardless of their beliefs)... not mentioned in this thread... they are citizens of the area too.

the board have declined to go through with this, at least absent unanimity. 4-3? give it a rest. why is it so important?

the board have = the board should have.

the board have = the board should have.

ICH-
DAN made that statement and I was asking for clarification from him on what he meant by not being comfortable.

Spud's an athiest who supports seperation of church and state as a rule but banning a short, non-sectarian prayer before a board meeting seems a bit petty.

Be Well.

To clarify what this appeal means... Chairman Plyler indicated that this appeal doesn't mean the return of sectarian prayer. The judge ruled that sectarian prayer was to end immediately.

And so, pending successful appeal, it can return. Such an appeal process, according to Plyler, could take five years. And I don't know whether that would also include the ultimate appeal - SCOTUS.

So here's a hypothetical. Under the new rules the commissioners will still have visiting preachers offer a prayer, but such prayer must not mention a particular deity.

My question... what if I, as a preacher, agree to such constraints, but then violate them while praying? Where does the liability rest?

agree to such constraints, but then violate them while praying? Where does the liability rest?

Most importantly would be the moral liability to yourself. Is 'Lying for Jesus' what christianity is all about? As a christian is that what your god wants of you? Deception?

The legal liability for such a disgusting tactic should rest with the Board who lent you the floor so you could cat-burgle the audience and jam your religion down their throat. Whoever made the motion to give you the floor and anyone who voted for that motion should be held in contempt.

I'm glad the ADF is a part of this. Nothing could provide more proof that this isn't a "freedom of religion" case so much as a "freedom of christians to do whatever the hell they want" case. I hope they spend millions and take it all the way to SCOTUS. Nothing makes me happier than watching evangelical fundies pile their cash in bundles like faggots under a witch stake and set it on fire.

I'd likely have my head bowed (so as not to make a scene with my "protest")...

Maybe you should pray for some self respect? How many hail marys does integrity cost?

I would hope that if there be a god he would rather his children offer informed disbelief in the absence of any evidence than mindless, hypocritical gestures and servitude, but after meeting his followers I'm not counting on it. You must hold a very low opinion of your fellow believers to think you need to mask a silent "protest".

Well...yeah, if they haven't read or don't understand The Constitution.
Same question as the last post: if the fight was for a Muslim prayer, or a Buddhist chant, would you want your tax money to pay for it?

#7 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2010-02-22 08:55 PM | REPLY | FLAG

i think court decisions are against you.

#42 | POSTED BY ICHIRO
"you act as if they are private citizens meeting their own private factory, they are not."

No. All I'm saying is that I don't see a problem having a brief, non-sectarian prayer before a meeting.
Not saying it needs to happen, not saying I want it to happen, just saying I don't have a problem with it.
I don't think the fabric of the country is going to fall apart either way.

Having taken another look at the thread, I noticed that Danforth pointed out that there WERE members who objected to the prayer, and I hadn't seen that.
Given that, in the interest of fairness to the objecting members, it's best that such a prayer take place between willing members prior to the meeting.

I would imagine the appeals process will eventually end with such a prayer, sectarian or not, being ruled out-of-bounds.

ANY prayer is sectarian, and thus divisive. The only true way to avoid sectarian strife is not to pray at all when such prayer is irrelevant. herm

@48, yes, i should have separated your response better:
It's one thing to disagree with the speaker/praying person in terms of their faith. Heck, I suspect an athiest[sic].....

my point is that you gave me the impression that nobody is complaining or "majority rule" -- i pointed out that are plaintiffs and so far they have won, and those plaintiffs are your neighbors.

(and if that isn't your response then it isn't my fault, i tried. but my point stands.)

peace

that are plaintiffs = that there are plaintiffs

@53, and as i [think] i stated: they --the board -- do not represent themselves as "individuals", separately, nor as do they represent only themselves, personally, as a whole "board". they represent ALL the citizens (and not just paid taxpayers either, re: TeaParty) and they do so every second they are on the clock/job, and, to some extent, off the clock, i'm sure.

the Constitution projects us ALL, it protects both majority and minority as one, that is the genius of it as a whole (in a nutshell). (hence, three branches, representative form, etc., etc., etc.).

They should open the meeting with this:

Opening Prayer
02/23/2010
Reverend Dr. Alan Keiran
Let us pray.

Lord God, we extol Your great Name, for you alone deserve our worship and unwavering allegiance.

We thank You for the gifts of meaningful labor, loving families and freedom to worship.

We thank You as well, for Your ultimate sacrifice which brings us hope for bright tomorrows.

Father, we humbly commend to Your abiding care those among us who are facing the challenges of age, health and the loss of loved ones.

May Your presence illumine the hearts of all who seek to bring You glory and long for Your loving presence.

We pray as well that You will empower our Legislators and their staffs with the wisdom and tenacity needed to solve the seemingly intractable issues facing our country and our world.

Give them the strength to endure long hours of labor with a positive sense of accomplishment.

Finally, we pray for all those in harm's way and their families.

May You watch over them and protect them with Your abiding presence. In Your mighty Name I pray, Amen.

http://chaplain.house.gov
From:

#57 | POSTED BY ICHIRO

I agree with everything you said here.

And I don't agree with anything anywhere.

People who always agree have the brains of a duck.

So never agree.

"always agree"

The key here is "always".

One of my favorite quotes:
"If you're not smart, surround yourself with smart people.
If you are smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

"If you're not smart, surround yourself with smart people.
If you are smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

Excellent quote! Who said that?

If you don't know, I will hijack quote and put my name at the end of it.

#64 | POSTED BY TOSSER

I saw it on "Sports Night", Aaron Sorkin's show before "The West Wing".
I don't know from where he got it, though. He may have written it all on his own.

He may have written it all on his own.

I don't know this Sorkin chap and nobody I know knows him neither.

I might as well make it my own, thanks.