In the latest heavy-weight match between church and state, a local town is being asked to stop invoking the name of Jesus at its council meetings. Is government explicitly endorsing religion by allowing the recitation of overtly Christian prayers, or is this a perfectly acceptable blending of church and state? Read the article below; then come back and give me your take!
Say a little prayer for me
.
ReplyDeleteBest argument there is
DeleteI agree
DeleteI believe that this court ruling should be against the town because, like it said, "If the court rules for the town of Greece, government officials would be free to "press prayers on a captive audience,". I am a Christian as well and if I were in this town's meeting I would have no problem with a Christian prayer but others who may not be would have a problem. America stands for equality and if only one religion is favored, I don't see that as being just. In perspective, if I were to attend a town's meeting and there was a starting prayer favoring one religion, I'd feel uncomfortable and see it as a type of oppression. So, the courts should keep a clear separation of church and state.
ReplyDelete-Brian Kwon per.5
I believe this is acceptable. Its not forcing religion on anyone. Nobody is telling that you must participate in this prayer, it's optional. We have a freedom of religion. Here we are not executing based on what you believe in. In the situation that the small town in New York had, the two women could have just simply left or could have just not listened. Nobody was forcing them to do anything. Someone won't always agree with a certain religion and that's okay, but I think there should be a freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteCaitlyn Olesniewicz
Period 2
I believe the town should be restricted from having prayers said before meetings. The oppressing majority of Christians are simply voicing their opinions over the other minorities. If the situation was reversed, and the town had Satanists prayers before the meetings a mob or riot would definitely form! So then why do Christians get special treatment? If you are going to have prayers before a meeting address everyone's God and beliefs. Yes, it may extend the meeting, but you decided to take time to address one all ready. Instead of making minorities feel oppressed cater to them. Acknowledge their Gods as well or do not mention any Gods at all. I do not support complete separation, I support equal treatment of all religions. Yes, you should be able to freely express your faith, but if you do it others can too.
ReplyDelete-Kaitlynn Abshire P.3
I think that there is nothing wrong with having a prayer at a town hall meeting. Just because someone is saying a Christian prayer does not mean they are endorsing that religion. I also think its a good idea that other people from other religions are able to say prayers. This shows that the city government is not giving preference to any religion. Everyone should have the right to express their religion, and, to me, prohibiting prayer is preventing someone to practice their religion. I think that along as every religion is given a fair chance, and no preference is made, there is nothing wrong with prayer at a town meeting.
ReplyDeleteAshley Martinez
Period 2
Would it not be less controversial if people were to pray before any form of government session starts? To me that seems like the more logical solution. I strongly believe in the statement "everyone has the right to a freedom of religion" as well as the freedom to the expression of religion no matter how much of a self declared atheist I may be. However, I believe it is important to throw in this question: in what manner does opening a government meeting with a prayer related to a non-religious, federal/state business? Would it not be more just and equal to allow everyone to prayer or not pray before a government session starts?
Deleteto pray or not pray (in accordance to their own beliefs)*
DeleteWhat Judge Calabresi said about the prayer practice being an endorsement of Christianity is completely correct in my opinion. Of course the attendees of this meeting did not NEED to participate in the prayer, but why should they be forced to sit through it during a town hall meeting? A minister giving such a blessing has no place whatsoever in this kind of meeting. A government meeting needs to be a place of equality and neutrality, but this prayer shows favor towards Christianity, ostracizing those of different faiths. It may not be unconstitutional according to a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment, but it seems rather obvious that it can have an adverse effect on citizens who are simply exercising their right to attend a town meeting. These citizens may have a need to be at this meeting, and are therefore forced to endure some prayer from a faith that may not be their own. Under the pretense of prayer I could go into a meeting and talk about how much I love light bulbs for 5 minutes before the meeting, that has no place in the meeting either.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am unsure as to the specific constitutionality of such prayer, it seems ridiculous for such a thing to be permitted.
Bethany Frantz p.3
I believe the town has the right to have prayers said before meetings. Calloway was told "leave the room or just not listen", these people with different religions had the choice to listen to the prayer or not, they were given the choice, they were not forced to pray. The two ladies in the room were given an option but instead of listening to the two choices they decided to get upset by it. If these two women wanted to express their own religion, they could have asked to say a prayer expressing their own religion, did they no? And if they did, and were rejected, then they could have done something about it. What the town did is an acceptable blend between church and state. The town did not make it mandatory to say the prayer, therefore they have the right to say prayers at its council meetings.
ReplyDeleteMonica Rodriguez
Period 2
Yet in what manner is prayer related to a non-religious, federal businesses? Also will it be time efficient or even seem sensible if every Congress meeting starts with numerous diverse range of prayers? Imagine if a Christian gives an opening statement: "Dear god, I call upon you to help us make just decisions... Amen." Sounds reasonable at this point. Then we have the atheist: "I call upon no god but the strength and will of man alone to help us make sensible decision. Let us allow the knowledge and advantages that evolution has bestowed upon us to help carry out this session," Okay, it may seem radical to some people but we agreed to respect all. However, when the Jews, Wicca, Muslims, and all the other denominations out there pitches in, the session will seem more of a show displaying all forms of prayers than a Congress session.
DeleteI believe a factor that continues prayer in government sessions is American tradition. While not officially branded the national religion, Christianity in all of its branches has been in America the longest, and the majority of people share that religion. Perhaps the connotation of "prayer" is what offends people, so as an alternative government officials can propose a "moment of reflection" prior to conducting government business. This can be interpreted in any way by anyone, and rather than a collective union of prayer, we give the individual the chance to express his or her belief in that allotted time. This prevents feeling outcasted by the minority religions and our government seemingly endorsing a specific religion.
Delete~Rommell Noche
p5
I agree with the conservatives that "urged the court to rule that cities, counties and public schools may favor or promote religion, so long as no one is forced to participate in a religious exercise". I think that is fair.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there is anything ridiculous with beginning a prayer in a town hall meeting. I would prefer it personally, but I understand that not everyone has the same beliefs as me or any beliefs in general. However, I do reason with the two ladies Galloway and Stephens because I would not want to feel like an outcast either and have to leave the room because I don't want to do the practice of another religion. I think that the best solution would be not to have prayer meetings because as a Christian myself, we could pray alone. We can pray for how the meeting is going to go before we even enter the room. Ya know what I mean? Even though it is a perk to pray as a whole town meeting, praying all together is not necessary because we should still be considerate to the other religions. And as Christians, we're supposed to love your neighbor as yourself which means that we shouldn't have others feel disrespected or outcast.
Janelle Magpayo
Period 3
I don't like how they're explicitly contacting Jesus. I mean, it's okay if they're doing it when everyone is okay with the prayer but if anyone isn't then it's best to respect that one person's beliefs even if you're part of the majority.
ReplyDeleteReading the article, I've come to the conclusion that the Jewish and atheist women in question were right to feel like outcasts because their council meeting decided to ask Jesus for a blessing. I don't find any reason on why council meeting should not ask a divine being for guidance because if that's what they want to do and everyone is okay with it then alright, go ahead; it's not hurting anybody.
But if there are people like Galloway and Stephens in attendance, it should be put into consideration that calling up Jesus is going to offend them. The "solution" to step outside or not listen is unacceptable because they shouldn't have to do that. They shouldn't have to sit there in that building and watch to their peers go about in a Christian prayer. Nothing is wrong with Christian prayers; it's just when it's paired with things like "separation of church and state", people have to be considerate of other people's views on religion. People that aren't of the same faith that's doing the praying also have the right to attend public meetings and services without having to listen or be a part of something they don't believe in.
-Dyanne Carranza, period 3
I have to side with the conservatives because the city should do as they please as for religion but not force anyone to participate.
ReplyDeleteIf a Christian lives in a Muslim dominated are, they know they are the minority and should accept the fact things wont go their way or be able to change the tradition. If they dont like how the city meetings are opened, they should have gone to the meetings before hand when they were finding a new place to move to.
Yes, the minority may have to go to the meetings for their business or to get a permit, but i'm sure they see others praying outside in public. Why not say something then? That would be violating the first amendment if the minority told that person who is religious to stop just because they feel left out. Other than that, a city should be able to promote or endorse while not forcing their citizens to participate. What can one meeting prayer do if you hardly go to a meeting?
-Daniel Cho
per. 2
I believe that the prayer in the council meeting is acceptable. No one is forced to attend the meeting, nor are they forced to participate in the prayer. If we have the freedom to excercise our own faith then there is nothing wrong with their actions.
ReplyDeleteSandralee DeVille P3
As a Christian, I would not mind prayers during a council meeting, but it is understandable how people of other denominations or lack of one could be offended by this practice. But I do not think that the members were endorsing the Christian religion, they were only expressing their right.
ReplyDeleteSelena murad
per2
In my opinion I believe that there is nothing wrong with having prayer at a town hall meeting because no one is being forced. We have the right of freedom religion so doesn't that mean we have the right to practice it? If we are restrained from practicing our desired religion wouldn't that be taking away our right to practice whatever religion we desire. I personally think it's okay to have a prayer at the meeting but I can totally understand being excluded. It's a country of freedom of religion which means anyone should be able practice their faith whether if it's praying in public or in private.
ReplyDeleteDenMari Bustamante P.5
Prayer should be allowed anywhere. Not just within designated areas. If there is a person of a lesser known religion who wishes to pray so be it. Let them pray whether it be alone or with the group. If you are genuinely dedicated to your faith then listening to another group pray would not affect you. Who knows how these individuals acted in response to the prayer which had further caused those participating to tell them to get out or listen. There was no abuse or harm done to these people. I have held my personal pantheistic view of God and yet have sat through countless Lutheran, Catholic, and Muslim worship days/prayer groups. The government removing such freedoms may just add to the closed-mindedness of the people. The people have a right to pray, whether it be in school or town meeting. To call yourself an outcast because of a little prayer is ludicrous. Come on America.
ReplyDelete-Justine B. P.5
I feel that this prayer is incorrect in town hall meetings for including the name of "Jesus" because the use of his name creates a sense of favoritism towards religions who believe or worship Jesus Christ and thus discriminating against other religions. But then again the people who get offended by this need to grow thicker skin because it is not done with the intention to offend anyone. These people should just accept the symbolism and significance behind the prayer without worrying about discrimination.
ReplyDeleteNick De La Rosa
P3
Although I believe that the prayer in the council meeting is something that I wouldn't really be appalled by, it may be a different case for most people, including the 2 complaining women. It brings a lot of tension to other committee members who may not have the same beliefs. The clear majority Christians are taking advantage of their size in this meeting and making the other minority religions feel excluded. As a result, the minority religions in that meeting may be seen as irrelevant or outcasts of that meeting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, by exercising that prayer, the Christians in that meeting did not consider the other people in the room of a different religion. I just feel as though having a clear christian prayer during a council meeting which discusses political ways is inappropriate because in a way, the group prayer indicates, and maybe even threatens, a majority group with religious intents.
As a result, I feel as though the establishment clause (Article 1) should prevent such invocations like these because it hinders from political equality.
Grace Anne Guerrero pd. 3
I side with Galloway and Stephens. As citizens of the town of Greece, they were there to get business done. Their business however, was interrupted by a prayer. Of course if they were Christian, they wouldn't have a problem with it, maybe even participate. When they informed the council about their opinion, they were told that they could just "leave the room or just not listen." They are active members in their community. Galloway and Stephens came to make efforts to address problems that affect the community as whole, yet are not being treated like equal members of the community because of their religion, or lack thereof. I belive when involving the community, the council should act in a way that doesn't affect those who aren't Christian negatively. Either do something that pleases everyone or don't do it at all. This is the extremely PC world we are evolving into.
ReplyDeleteKeej Reyes
P.5
I think it's ok to have a prayer be said before meetings because people who don't share the same beliefs can simply "leave the room or just not listen." I feel like a mean person on this subject maybe because I have never been targeted for my faith or lack thereof but if someone doesn't like a situation, they can usually choose to get away from it. If I were in a town hall meeting and I heard a prayer from a different religion other than mine, I would either sit quietly or leave. I don't know if this is constitutionally the same thing, but many people feel uncomfortable with learning about the big bang theory or being taught how early life was formed and they simply sit quietly and listen. Can't this be applied to the prayer at town meetings?
ReplyDeleteDevin Oyetibo
Per. 3
I feel as if prayer in a council meeting isn't really professional of the government, but the attendees are free to participate if they please. I feel as long as part taking in a religious event or anything is optional, no one should feel uncomfortable to the fact that something religious is taking place. Beside, total separation of church and state is not possible in America. It is on our money and in our pledge. America shouldn't have to change the majority views for some views of the minority. Even so, if people were really uncomfortable, they could always leave the room until the player is over and then come back.
ReplyDeleteMelissa De Silva
DeletePeriod 2
The supreme court should not rule with the city of Greece. This is because if we are to allow religion be voiced in our government this will destroy the separation of church and state. Also this will open the door for the majority religion in different cities to impose their religion onto others. This will in a way create an official religion for that region thereby suppressing the minority religions. I do think though that a simple generic prayer at the beginning of council meetings is not a bad thing though. Just as long as it stays generic so that it can cater to all.
ReplyDeleteRigoberto per.3
Equality. Whether it’s for a Town Board Meeting or a basketball team, anybody that’s affiliated with a group should be represented equally. What I mean by equality is that productive inputs AND religious beliefs should not be suppressed due to “precedence” and “procedures.” However, in most cases, Individuals that support minority decisions, or in this case, religion, don’t really speak out due to the fact that they do not want to be depicted as the “outcast.” They tend to just stand back and simply let it happen. However for these 2 individuals, I give them major respect. When Galloway stated you could either leave the room or choose to not listen, was a simple slap to the face to these women. Knowing that these 2 people are the religious minority of the meeting, Galloway simply instigated the problem even more. The 2 was already uncomfortable as is regarding the pre-game ritual, but kept to themselves until now. In my opinion, equality among others, is required to have a successful program, team, meeting, board, etc. If you,(Greece, N.Y. Board) are going to promote a religious ritual before a meeting, PLEASE incorporate ALL religions. Not too much to ask right?
ReplyDeleteRasyeed Jusran P.2
I believe that there should be a separation between state and church because there will always be a type of argument or disagree when they blend unless they blend properly and equally. If the town hall would of allowed a mixture of prayers from different religion's then there wouls be no need to have gone to court. Also thoes people weren't forced to listen to the pray or be present during that portion of the meeting. Still its not fair that one religion is presented more than the others. That would personally affect me a little because it kind of give the impression that the Christian religion is the most "important" ( I guess you could say) and it should be focused in more than other religions. So if there was a proper blend of the church and state then I'd be okay with it not being completely separate.
ReplyDeleteKriztine Rodriguez
P.2
I belive this would only count as a legitimate problem if the members of opposing religions were not allowed to say their own prayer. Although allowing prayer in government establishments can still offended many others who are not willing to speak out about it. Many can argue that it is then their fault for not voicing their personal concerns, therefore I think religion should just be completely separated from government. Prayers should not be said and if someone truly believes it is necessary then they can say it silently to themselves. Doing that should not be a problem to someone who is so dedicated to their faith, yes they have a reason to have freedom of religion but it does not mean they have to flaunt it. If an individual is truly comfortable with his or her faith, then they should easily be able to keep it to themselves.
ReplyDeleteRebekah Gonzales Period 2
I believe that starting out a city council meeting with prayer is wrong, it does "endorse" christianity, but the other people are being a little annoying.. like if you really are getting offended by these people saying a prayer then what you went to the meeting for really isn't that important. and yes you might feel as though they shouldn't be aloud to do that, well it's happening. suck it up.
ReplyDelete-ivo de gioia p2
I think that prayers should be allowed at government meetings because I don't believe that the first amendment meant complete separation of church and state. Our nation was founded on Christian principles and our forefathers prayed for God's help in governing the nation. So if the founders prayed to Jesus in government meetings then how can we deduce that they meant for religion and government to be completely separate? A majority of Americans are Christians or Catholics or believe in God so why would it be wrong to include the majority of American's beliefs? Maybe I need to know more about the Amendment but when I read it I feel like it says the government cannot abolish any religion or establish a national religion... So saying prayers at a public school's graduation is not establishing a national religion. If a person doesn't agree with the prayer they can choose not to participate. As long as there are no consequences for not participating then it is still within the guidelines of the 1st amendment. And I agree with Devin, I feel uncomfortable learning about the Big Bang theory and evolution but yet that's still taught in school...
ReplyDelete-Shernae HughesPeriod 2
I believe that prayer should not be allowed at a city council meeting. These meetings are for business and that is why people go to them. Not for a quick prayer session. Anybody can go to these meetings which means that there will most likely be a diverse amount of faiths present. If the meeting is opened by a prayer focused on one religion, then others who practice different religions may feel ostracized against. This can lead to a decrease in participation in city government which already worsens the low political participation rates that America already has. In conclusion, prayer should only take place in ones own personal time or at a place of worship, not a place of business.
ReplyDeleteAdam Guizado
Period 3
I think that this isn't necessarily a bad thing but not a good thing either because this prayer meeting isn't harming anyone, only leaving out minorities. I think we should just take out prayer from those meetings so no religion is being left out. Prayer should be utilized in more religious areas and not areas that are tied with the government or the state, otherwise it might seem like the government is endorsing a certain religion.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Park P.5
Overall i feel that mixing church and state isn't a problem. Especially when the first amendment is so vague in its meaning. I believe if the city council wants to start off with a pray, then that's no problem. As long as they are not endorsing Christianity or trying to condom a specific religion then its okay. I believe the people who chose not to pray, have the right not to bow there heads or leave until the prayer is over. But the way the council is doing their pray I believe its unconstitutional. First by bring a Christian Priest they are supporting Christianity. The way to fix this is by doing a nonspecific pray and not forcing people to bow their heads. Overall I don't see a problem by mixing church and state.
ReplyDeleteMarco Cruz, Period 5
It makes no sense to me how local government meetings as well as high federal meetings like Congress and the Supreme Court are allowed to start their hearings off with prayers when public schools are strictly prohibited from doing so. Now I'm not saying that the prayers should not happen but I'm just upset with the blatant hypocrisy that our government shows from time to time. They need to be more consistent with their rulings either no public place should have prayers or all of them can they can't just say schools can't but Congress can. For this particular case I'm absolutely tired of hearing these insignificant cases about people being too sensitive and being upset about nothing. Unless they were being forced to pray then there is no issue and the article even said they had the option to ignore. Is it that hard to ignore some worthless little prayer that everyone will forget within the first ten minutes. And I'm not being biased to the Christian faith because I don't follow their faith or any other. Overall people need to man up when it comes to these meaningless issues so what if the mayor wants to lead the meeting off with a two ver se prayer its hardly the end of days.
ReplyDeleteLevi Gonzalez Period 2
I say allow it. And after the initial brawls, deaths, burning at the stakes, then determine whether or not it was successful and to what extent should the "I swear not to kill you under penalty of excommunication and death" contract be enforced or what it should contain. The flip side is that maybe the knowledge of other religions wake people up from their bubbles. Also i demand that cults be permitted to exist in the same fashion as all other religion.
ReplyDeletePreston Pyle pd. 2
I believe that we are making things way more complicated than they should be because I feel that we should've went with the strict definition of congress making no law regarding religion and leave it at that. In these types of cases I feel that the government should have a hands off approach because I believe it should be left up to the majority whether they would like prayer or not. If one or two people disagree then they can either not participate or leave. I understand that they may feel uncomfortable but life isn't always fair especially if your views do not agree with the majority. I feel like they should just deal with it and not try to change tradition. I hope that made sense.
ReplyDeleteAlexandria Jones per 3
Judge Calabresi said the prayer was an endorsement of Christianity and I completely agree with the judge because if they're going to force people to sit through a prayer, theyre saying, "christianity is the common religion and you should participate with us." I believe that the church and state should be completely separated because people's personal beliefs shouldn't get in the way of another person's life. I dont believe that the prayer before the meeting is really a big deal, but if you let something small like this go it can increase into something bigger.If we truly combine the church and state we'd break up as a country because some would be against certain laws that would be born as a result.
ReplyDeleteadrian
period 2
adrian garcia
DeleteNo, I don't think prayers should be said out loud at city council meetings, but instead quietly or on your own time. In this case, they're fully supporting Christianity; and the fact that anyone can attend this meeting, means there'll be a wide diversity of different religions. It just opens up a window of offense. If the topic of religon was black and white, then I'd say that blending church and state would be fine; but its not. There's so many different sets of beliefs, which means that not everyone will agree on one set religion; and so I think it'd be best if the government stayed out of the topic of religion in order to avoid conflict, or be accused of endorsing one set religion over another.
ReplyDelete- Sarina Fimby p.3
I believe that prayer should not be allowed at a city council meeting because it ultimately suppresses the minority religions and cause a favoritism towards the majority religion. Even though those who are not with the majority seem extremely sensitive as they can simply just respect those with different views. The resolution is to opt for a silent prayer so that no one is put on a pedestal or oppressed.
ReplyDelete-Bryant Fascio Period 3
Being a Christian, I personally do not generally feel excluded or outcast religiously. That being said, I always consider the adverse; if a Muslim or Satanist were asked to lead such a prayer, many Christians would be in an uproar. If the court rules that the town cannot have a minister lead a prayer preceding the meeting, they are not inhibiting the free exercise of any religion in any way. It is just not allowing ALL attendees at the meeting to be led in a specific prayer, the attendees themselves can pray, or not pray at all, for the meeting to be led by whatever deity they worship nevertheless. It won’t hinder their ability to pray, it’s not even about that, it’s about the city endorsing a religion. “it has been much disputed across the country whether town councils or county boards can regularly invite Christian ministers to open their public meetings with prayers to Jesus Christ” the town councils inviting a Christian minister to pray to Jesus is like endorsing Christianity. Either including all equally or none at all are the two options to me. I personally lean towards the wall-of-separation in THIS case because it is so difficult to claim that all religions are voluntarily being included because even if given the option is given for all religions to provide a prayer, those of the minority are not likely to stand up and face the majority Christians in a prayer to a different Being. There are very strong arguments for the other side but its really tough for me to say that I agree. There is just so much ambiguity and interpretation in this amendment. WOAH this is long, lo siento!!
ReplyDeleteDOM Strickland p.3 :)
I believe that it is acceptable to pray at a council meeting as long as all the members do not feel obligated to do so and are told they have the right to refuse to join in. The intentions of the prayer is not to make anyone feel less or “outcasts” or to promote a certain religion but as a “traditional opening invocations that call for God's blessing.” The members are gathered to get work done not to criticize one another for what religion they are. Everyone should just respect the fact that some people feel the need to pray and either dismiss it or set up while it happens as you would like others to respect you for your own religious practices.
ReplyDeleteJackie Araujo
Period 3
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that there is nothing wrong with having a prayer at a town hall meeting because no one is being obligated to pray. The individuals who don’t share/have the same beliefs as the others can simply “leave the room or just not listen.” As Americans we have an honorary privilege of obtaining freedom of religion so in my defense I take that as us having the right to practice our religion at an appropriate time and place (in a civil manner of course). If we are restrained from practicing our religion wouldn't that be taking away our right to practice whatever religion we believe in? my opinion may be different from other people, but I also understand the fact of being excluded. But I just think that as a country we are a country of freedom of religion. Anyone should be able practice their faith whether if it's praying in public or in private and I think that’s something no one can take away.
Sonia Mejia period 3
I do not believe that prayers of any kind have any business in city or any government meeting. There is a reason we have churches; they are places designed for worship. Town hall meetings and any other government meeting should be free from any religious entanglements. Those who are opposed to this generally say that people who don't agree with the pray should suck it up or leave. The problem with this is that people did not go to these town hall meeting for religious preaching they came there to participate in our government. Imagine if the city was debating on whether to build a Christian symbol on public property( or other similar scenario) ; how many non-Christians would speak up if the meeting was started with a Christian prayer? The other problem is that if you allow every religious affiliation to preach there are several problems. One, it still leaves out atheists (no evolution prayers). Two it would go on for a very long time and may distract from the issues needed to be debated. And three not every group would receive the same or equal attention as the next. If your a Christian this would be fine, you're the dominate religion. But who is going to argue that a Wiccan prayer receives equal attention as a Christian prayer, and in this sense one religion is favored in a government sponsored setting than the other.
ReplyDeleteAndrew DeLay
per 3
I don't think that religion has any place in city council or really anywhere in the governments business. I personally don't see how anyone could be seriously offended by one small prayer no one will remember but I can see how being excluding can cause minor tension between minorities and the practicing majority and that can lead to small petty conflict and disagreements and wasted time that could be entirely avoided by simply banning religious hearing/preaching/prayer/whatever in government institutions all in all. The only other way to truly promote religious equality is to have a prayer or whatever for every other religion and thats nearly impossible and an even larger waste of time. Saying a small prayer will in no way shape or form have any real lasting positive effects on how a government meeting goes as religion has no place in government anyways. A prayer will as seen, only cause worthless controversy and wasted time over an issue that was supposed to be setled long ago by Jefferson.
ReplyDelete-Devin Gillen P.5
In this case, i believe that having an opening prayer before these council meetings are not okay. Due to the fact that it seems the Christian faith is the "favored/preferred" religion and these council members seem to not have let other religions have an equal representation in these opening prayers. There is an idea of separation of church and state and that should be enforced. Why is it that these council meetings are allowed to go on with these opening prayers when they are not supposed to showing favoritism or preference of one religion over the other. Especially in a case where not everyone in that council meeting room is okay with these opening prayers being conducted by the same Christian pastor. There should at least be a fair/equal oppurtunity for other religions to give an opening prayer. Or a plausible route to take is where the cut out the prayer entirely so that they can not worry about religions getting equal representation and issues of that nature. But then again, somebody might complain to the fact why there isn't any prayers being conducted before these meetings.
ReplyDelete-Anthony Ortega
per. 2
DeleteIt is extremely easy to isolate a minority, especially when the one ostracizing is part of the majority. Some of us view that simply giving the option to the minorities of stepping out when a prayer takes place as a fine option. Others believe that having the ability to ignore prayers is good enough and so no further legal actions are needed. When the minorities takes the matter to court some of us do not hesitate, and sometimes even with alacrity, to view “them” as the “crackhead,” the “whiners,” the “disillusioned,” or simply as those with no respect and manners. We must ask ourselves, however, what manner do we have on our part of the spectrum if we insist people to ignore or to step outside and wait when the purpose of the congregation was for federal, non-religious related businesses? To put this in a rather bizarre but not a far fetched perspective, consider if a teacher decided to start a test in a public education system with these words:
ReplyDelete“Dear Asians, I thank thee for consistent efforts within the school. Let us feel secure knowing they exists by our sides in competitions. Let us feel plentiful for having them in our mathematics department. Praise the Asians! Amen.”
These words will certainly be uncomfortable, if not offending, to those who do not consider themselves within the wide range of ethnicity that fall under as “Asians.” In fact we will question the necessity of this hypothetical prayer in the first place! However, if we view this in detail we can see that it has the same purpose as regular religious prayer: it invokes a deity or an object of worship for help or for expressing thanks, and it is a form of expression. It also contains the same problem as prayers: not everyone believes in or falls under a category that the prayer is involved with.
To truly respect everyone I believe there are two solutions: either to express all forms of prayer of every denomination as well as a statement by an atheist within those meetings or to simply not hold any form of religious openings in federal/government businesses. If we think for a bit the former solution certainly does not seem time efficient nor will it be pragmatic when considering how many religions exists. Therefore the latter solution seems the best. The Constitution may never have explicitly stated “separation of church or state” and the solution I suggested may not sooth the majority, but I view it as the most fair and just route.
Wootark Kim, Period 5
DeleteI think that we should not have any religious traditions in our government. My reasoning would be that there would be no favored religion this way. This would also get rid of the problem that many non-Christians find in these prayers said. I think that there should be a wall that separates church and state.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lee
P 2
In my opinion prayer should be allowed during the meetings. Although some people may feel like an outcast they were the ones that brought it upon themselves with the decision not to participate. With a prayer they are simply doing something quick, its not like they are standing there for hours preaching the message or shoving their religions down anyone's throat. In the article when Galloway states "We are not Christians, but we wanted to be at the meetings. When the minister was at the podium, it felt like a pulpit." yes its not fair that they feel like that but no ones pressuring you to feel like you need to convert to the faith, nor should it feel like a pulpit. its a prayer, you're obviously not missing anything important at the meeting. point in this is the government is not endorsing religion with prayer and for people that are mind set on not participating can simply find some other thing to do in the meantime.
ReplyDelete~Ariana Santillanez Pd. 5
I believe that in this case the council went to far and they were endorsing Christianity. The article mentions that at times the council would make the audience rise as the prayer was made. If instead the council had allowed whomever wanted to join and had used a less than overtly Christian prayer as well as widened the range for it to be not any one specific religion, then it would have been an acceptable blending of church and sate. In regards to the endorsement test the council's actions Christianity specifically to the observers and therefore would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteSteven Pierce
per. 5
I think that government should seperate its political affairs from religious affairs because not everyone follows the same religion. For example it is common that in meetings or gatherings you always start with a prayer but theres always that one person who looks out of it making them seem as outcasts. I agree in that there should be no prayers being said since it is favoring towards one religion when government shouldn't seem impartial to a specific one.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Contreras period 3
I agree with Chief Justice Warren Burger,that as long as they are not forcing or establishing religion among the people in the room they are not doing harm. In the constitution, it does not say separation of church and state. Freedom of religion does play a part as well because the atheist and Jews may choose not to take part. I feel as if the government is not being drastic with religion, any religion, in that matter or favoring one religion over the other, then it is acceptable. But simple prayers in a city council meeting are just as acceptable and the pledge of allegiance.
ReplyDelete-Sam Luevano
p5
The government is explicitly endorsing religion by allowing the recitation of overtly Christian prayers because it is endorsing that whatever prayer was said, that is the set religion. How is the prayer chosen? From majority, minority? I feel it isn't an appropriate place to hold a prayer at all. People are saying that they don't have to listen or can just walk out if they are hearing something they don't want to hear. Well how come their time has to be wasted? Why is it them that have to be separated from the prayer because they are not of the same religion? I feel like taking a moment of silence or reflection is better upon everyone equally because it doesn't single anyone out. It is all religions included. A wall of separation between the church and state is definitely needed.
ReplyDeleteYesenia Castaneda p.3
I don't think opening the council meeting with a prayer is acceptable if it is making people feel outcasted. A council meeting is not a place of religious worship so therefore prayer should not be allowed inside of it. One solution offered would be to let someone of each religion stand in front of all and pray. However that would just cause everyone at some point to feel uncomfortable and/or outcasted, not to mention extend the meeting by a great length of time. Prayer should not be allowed in the meeting.
ReplyDeleteShelly Gunther p.5
This is quite a difficult question to answer because I believe that all people of all religions and faiths should have equal protection under the law and should be able to freely exercise those faiths; but when it conflicts with what is precedent, then I detect a slight problem. Assuming that the two women who complained about the prayer lived in that town, they had a right to complain and the city council board was in the wrong because they had asked everyone to bow their heads and join in the prayer. Of course, I can see how that is unjust towards those who do not favour that type of prayer. A possible solution would be to not force anyone to join in the practice and it would only be voluntary. But because the complaints were based on the feeling of being uncomfortable and "outcasts," the best thing to do might just be to allow other religious persons to say their own prayers preceding the event, or to get rid of prayer overall. However, when one removes God from such places--or any place at all--corruption will ensue overtime. Call me what you will, but it has been proven over history that this, in fact, has happened and still happens. If we look at when our country first began, the beginnings were definitely rough, but for the most part, the Founding Fathers were very concerned with God's Word and preferred its rationality over anything else. Now, we have just about cleared out all things God in society and we are not looking too good. But referring back to the question, I do not think it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of what works and what doesn't work for us as a whole, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteRachel Thompson, Period 5
I don't personally find a problem with prayers during council meetings. As long as the members present are given the option to not participate if they so please. Saying a prayer isn't endorsing a religion upon someone else, nor is it pressuring disagreeing parties to align themselves with a specific type of prayer. Not letting someone practice their faith is wrong. If the government did that, wouldn't that infringe upon their rights? If a Jew or an atheist chooses not to take part, that's perfectly acceptable. If they choose to perhaps do prayers of their own, then that is acceptable too. As long as no one is really losing their rights; from the government or from others.
ReplyDeleteMadison Sweet
Period: 3
I completely understand the two citizens of the minority religions. I would feel the same way if I were in there shoes, especially when they bring in a minister to give a prayer. I believe we must not adopt a accommodationist view which I feel is what they were proposing instead of simply drawing the line with a clear separation of church of state. Having a separationalist standpoint will produce much less confrontation and confusion.
ReplyDeleteLauren Verdugo
Period 2
In my opinion, the open opportunity for multiple religions to display their prayers seems like a crisis waiting to happen. The opportunity is inviting new altercations and new opinions to emerge – some supporting, some not. With opinions, trial cases will emerge, and the Supreme Court will most likely get involved. The suggestion that the judges should make laws for religion seems unreasonable. They are, with their human nature, most likely going to be bias about their religious supports. They are not capable of being gatekeepers for what is constitutional when their own bias judgments are inflicted upon their decisions. Altogether, I think that Congress should dismiss prayers during government related business.
ReplyDeleteIf multiple religions were allowed to display their prayers, I honestly think that no one would be fine with a satanic prayer circle. They are displaying their religion, but because of peoples’ opinions on the Devil, no one would tolerate such actions. Like I said, it’s a crisis waiting to happen.
- Thao Dao, Period 5
I believe that in this case yes, the government was explicitly endorsing religion by allowing the recitation of overtly Christian prayers. Though yes because I am a christian I wouldn't mind, I completely understand where the minorities are coming from. If I were, I too would feel uncomfortable with the fact that if I were a bit offended my only option to exit the building then come all due to a different religious group getting to pray. Then again several religions did get an opportunity to be represented in prayer, however I still would not want to sit through all of those. Thus, I feel that there does need to be a greater distance, when it comes to public, between church and state because there are numerous churches and religions that want representation. If one get's represented in the town's meeting then they all do but that's, excuse the cliche, doing the most.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Hall.
Period 5.
I don't think there was anything wrong with a little prayer before a meeting. Those who wished not to participate had a choice to not listen or to just join in. No one said anything harmful or offending to those who didn't participate. Those two women could have said their own prayers and there would have been nothing wrong with that. This was an equal way of separating and combining church and state. If the women had a problem with the prayer, they should've addressed the prayer leader first and talked it over. They could have simply agreed on not saying "God" or implying it and have more of a encouraging speech or a pep talk.
ReplyDeleteAshley Liu Pd.5
I guess I lean towards siding with the two citizens. I don't really agree with prayers within government institutions. Majority is always gonna outweigh the minority and someone is gonna be made uncomfortable. Separation of church and state should be clearer maybe. Perhaps have prayers after meetings, that way people can leave knowing they got what they needed without having to sit through a prayer that possibly upsets them. Any rules regulating this topic would be tricky as there will always be someone flustered. Complete separation would probably be the simplest solution, maybe not the best but a more clear cut one.
ReplyDeleteIsaac Ayon P.5
In a situation such as this a separationist view point is needed. The council must realize that although the majority of it's citizens may share the same faith as them there's also that percent of the minority who might have opposing views. I can see why Galloway and Stephens felt outcasted especially when the council would ask the attendees to stand and bow their heads, it was almost like they were forced into participating because if they didn't they'd be the only individuals in the room sitting which would most certainly make them feel outcasted; and saying words such as "God save the United States and this honorable court." can cause dismay. In a way people should learn to accept it but there's always going to be that one or couple of people who feel uncomfortable in these kinds of situations. If the council feels the need to constantly open in prayer they shouldn't have Christian ministers leading the pray, they shouldn't have individuals stand and bow their heads; they should have a moment of silence in which each individual can pray (or not) in their own way. Everyone has their own take on the situation, there will always be people attacking the tradition so having the wall of separation in tacked is the best way to go, without any blending whatsoever.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Swift
P. 2
In my opinion, what the local town is doing is acceptable but i understand why it might make some of the officials uncomfortable. The government aren't endorsing religion towards the two religious minorities in my view but are close to the line. Possibly, if they can just eliminate the Christian prayers and make it more generalized, it wouldn't be a problem? I'm more neutral to this topic because i have experienced what the two women felt and have done what the government officials have done.
ReplyDeleteNyron Dones
p.5
In my opinion it is fine to have a prayer at the beginning of the meeting. I completely agree with the court ruling of “cities, counties and public schools may favor or promote religion, so long as no one is forced to participate in a religious exercise”. However, in this particular situation where people were asked to “sit down and bow their heads” and the women were told to “leave the room or just not listen” was completely wrong. Due to the city bringing in a minister, they are obviously favoring one religion and ignoring minorities. I believe if the city would like a prayer at the beginning of the meeting they should not state any specific religion but rather let everyone pray in their own way for a couple minutes. Somewhat like a moment of silence where nobody is forced upon anything they may not agree with.
ReplyDeleteMonica Tacawy
Per.5
Personally if that was me in the minority, i wouldn't feel like an outcast as long as Im not being forced into anything. I honestly think these minority reps are too sensitive. i don't see the damage done here if a Christian pastor is called in to make a prayer at a gov't meeting, you really don't have to be there and nobody is forcing you to believe anything. In the end, it's all up to that person on whether they can handle it or not. It's kind of like the same idea where Muslim students wear turbans to public school, they can't be asked to remove it (I think?) because it's their religion and they have the right to practice it. And let's say a Jew wants to do his own prayer for the meeting, then he's free to do it if he wants to. Overall I feel like it's the majority being persecuted by the minority, now that America's been having rapidly changing views on social equality and religion.
ReplyDelete-calvin mogi
period 2
I don't see any harm in saying a little prayer before a meeting. Americans have the right to freedom of expression, that includes their freedom of practicing their religion. If their prayer doesn't affect or harm anyone in a physical, violent way, then what's the problem? People get TOO offended if one isn't of the same religion as them or preach a different god. Though I can see the problem the two women had, they have to realize that yes, the majority of the people in the US are of christian/catholic faith.But it was wrong for them to be told to leave. It's as if they completely favored another religion other than the minority one. Not letting someone practice their faith is wrong.If a prayer was to be done before a city meeting, the prayer should be done own their own, like a moment of silence. That way no one is oppressed from practicing their faith.
ReplyDeleteMia Tablac
Period 3
This is a perfectly acceptable blending of church and state seeing as the prayer wasn't enforced on Stephens and Galloway. The article even said they were told they have the option to leave or not listen. Their feelings of being an outcast are strictly their own perception of the situation. They could have simply not prayed and focused on the fact that they are there for a council meeting. I myself have Catholic family members and when one dies I have to go to a Catholic church for their funeral. Any part of the Catholic prayers that I don't agree with I simply do not listen and stop. Just as it's not enforced in that situation it isn't enforced at a council meeting in the town of Greece, NY. The only way I would disagree is if they intended to enforce Christianity and somewhat hid the intention by giving the two women options to not listen or leave. Sadly we can't read minds.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Bowens
Per. 3
In my own personal belief, if I was in the minority, I would not feel uncomfortable if I wasn't being obligated to do so. I don't believe that the courts should get in the middle of this, but I do feel that if the town is going to practice one religion, it should give the opportunity to other religions during other town meetings. It isn't harming anyone physically, and it would only spare a few minutes.
ReplyDeleteShayna Perales
Period 2
Many of the same arguments here is that no harm is dealt to these folks who were offended by the Christian-led town hall meetings. I don't understand.... that's what they are arguing for, that they feel persecuted by this small action! (Obviously there's no physical harm.... But there is a presence of isolation or rejection from a congregation.) We can't just exclude the minority and use the scenario, "If I were the minority in this situation..." It doesn't work that way.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation is that this slight blend of church and state isn't fine. All of these "in God we trust" in government meetings, our currency, and the pledge we do everyday are part of old tradition (the roots of American Protestants). Just because the Constitution never mentioned "separation of church and state" doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
All of the "persecution" to other religions and atheism won't go away until we make a change to break these traditions. Please don't be biased to your faith when you support or reject this situation.
-Peter Park, period 5
I don't really see the harm in saying a prayer before a meeting. It's not like they were saying hateful things. I get that the two citizens were feeling uncomfortable because something that was against their beliefs was being said, but does it really need to turn into a big thing. I'm not even religious myself and people saying prayers(even at government events) doesn't bother me at all. Religion is a big part of our nations history and there is no way it won't be in our government. I don't really like it, but it isn't really doing any harm except offending a few people every now and then that don't want to hear a prayer of a different faith or see a commemorative cross in front of a government building or a memorial.
ReplyDeleteAustin Staight Period 2
I feel that the women had the right to feel the way they did. While i myself being a Christian would not mind it I can see how others would. I believe that they should just leave religion out of the equation.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to open it up with prayer. If people want to they could pray on their own time. With these prayers they tend to use Christian speakers more so than speakers from other religions. One could argue a way to fix this would be to switch it up more often and ask speakers from different religions to come and lead them in prayer. But then again, this doesn't fix the problem for the atheist who feels uncomfortable. They wanted to partake in the council meeting, not listen to a prayer from a religion they don't believe in. If they wanted to do that they could go to church.
-Christian Ruiz
Period 2
By some of the other comments it is clear that you can never truly understand the minority in this situation unless you have been through a situation where you have felt uncomfortable with your own set of beliefs. Personally I was raised Muslim as a kid and throughout middle school I started to go to Christian and sometimes Catholic churches and experienced a lot of different sets of beliefs. I myself sometimes felt uncomfortable as a kid explaining my own morals and views. So in this situation I don’t understand how you could tell somebody to STAY THROUGH A PRAYER that they do not believe in or LEAVE a city council meeting because they aren’t of the same religion. Wouldn’t that make anybody feel like an outcast and uncomfortable? The city invited known “Christian pastors [and] sometimes, the dozen or so attendees were asked to stand and bow their heads.” That clearly favors Christianity over any other religion, as well as mentioning Jesus in prayer. This is tyranny of the majority!
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the America I thought we had, that gave the minority a voice? Where is democracy when only a certain religion is considered in prayer, and what about separation of church and state? They secluded the two women who were not Christians, but why couldn’t they just hold the prayer in a different setting, in a different time, what are the intentions? I am for group prayers, but never in a setting that involves our government and is clearly favoring one religion over another.
Sarah Woodruff
Period 2
In my opinion, it is okay to have a prayer before a meeting to an extent. Yes people say if you don't want to listen or participate then you should leave, but what if a large portion of people feel uncomfortable? Is it fair to have them leave? In a world like ours today, so many religions have come about. More known than others. With starting a meeting with a prayer with a specific deity you're ostracizing the other religions. Now with that being said, it would be fair to start off with a prayer that is more vague without specifically pointing out a deity. When a specific deity is pointed out, in a way the people who are praying are "forcing" their beliefs upon others. Nowadays, people are quick to make a hasty generalization about the majority religion, but that isn't the case. Different religions are being spread across the nation. Basically, having a prayer is okay if a specific deity is not acknowledged. Some people may ask how is it possible to pray without acknowledging a deity, well if you can't figure it out, then don't have a prayer with people of different beliefs.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Collier
P.5
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with having a prayer at a Townhall meeting. The people attending the Townhall meeting can leave at any time or can choose whether or not to listen to the prayer they. Also do not have to participate in the prayer. The people of this country have the right to religious freedom those of other religious backgrounds should have the opportunity to also pray. The prayers at these meetings are affecting the people who let it affect them. Members are not obligated to follow along or go with that religion. We should be able to pray (with whatever religious background one has ) when and where ever we find it most convenient. Saying one cannot pray is simply taking away one's ability to practice their own religion. I believe that this problem or situation did not need help from the courts. But simply they should've solve the situation by themselves. It seems as if every situation where comes to religion, race or sexual orientation they should always take it to the court rather than simply handling it themselves. However certain problems or situation do require the courts help. But in this situation could've been solved by simply changing the way they did prayer. The one leading the Townhall meeting could've simply said everyone please take a moment of silence and if you like to pray then you may pray if you like to think about something else think about something else rather than making it seem as if he/ she was forcing their religion on the minorities.
ReplyDeleteIneba Miller per 2
I dont think there is any harm in having a little prayer before a meeting. It is not intended to offend others with different beliefs. Everybody has a choice to participate or not. Nobody is being forced into listening to a Christian prayer. We all have the freedom to practice any religion we want so I feel like those two women could have said their own prayers if they had wanted to. We all believe in many different things so as long as nobody is being forced unwillingly into doing something they do not agree upon then it is fine. Also, it would be better if the non-Christians could work together with the person who is leading the prayer and come up with a compromise. I agree with Ashley Liu when she says that it can just be a prep talk.The prayer does not have to be particular about a certain higher being.
ReplyDeleteGwen Pham P.5
I understand Galloway and Stephens because it is a bit uncomfortable when everyone else is praying and you are the only two sitting down. It is an indirect oppression. If this were a different setting I would disagree with these two because no one is forcing them to do anything and everyone has freedom of religion but since it is at a town board meeting there should be a separation of state and church. There is obviously no sign of the pastor forcing the two to be in prayer but since it is a public hall there shouldn't be one religion favored. If everyone in the meeting agreed to have a prayer then I believe it is okay to have a small prayer in the beginning, but if some participants are uncomfortable that opinion should be respected since it is a government type environment.
ReplyDeleteFahrin Bhuiyan P.5
In the case of Galloway & Stephens it seemed like their beliefs weren't being respected or equally accepted, especially since they were only 2concerned people against the many others at the town meeting, being overwhelmed by the majority. I don't believe that every public prayer is endorsing a specific religion, I agree with Sandra Day O' Conner's point of view that gov't should be neutral to religion, that a prayer when observed can be rationally determined if it's favoring a certain religion. Maybe a solution could be to have a prayer that doesn't promote a certain religion or use the word God or any other diety, but instead only expresses the hopes that courts/meetings make the right decisions & justify good intentions, although the writing of such a prayer would probably be difficult. I liked the idea that justices should insist on prayers that reflect the religious diversity of the town, so then everyone could participate equally.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Richardson per.3
Personally, I am just like Mr. C; a white christian male. So by default, I believe that I am apart of almost every "majority" out there. With this being said, it can be understood why I feel this issue should not be an issue. I would consider myself a non-practicing christian, but I still do not feel excluded when others around me (who are of different groups) do their own thing. Wootark does bring up a good point in his "praise the Asians" scenario, but even that would just push me to do better.
ReplyDeleteChurch and State should be separated, do not get me wrong. Last thing I want is a Federal order to go to church every week. I will gladly pass, on this hypothetical example. But there comes a point when the offense you take because there are others that disagree with what you believe becomes a mere personal problem. That screams insecurity, ignorance, and lack of an open-mind. Everybody will get excluded from something in their life because of one thing or another. That is a common occurrence in life. It is not the government's job to make everybody feel included in on everything. They have other, more pressing, matters to attend to. If you don't want to feel excluded then either do not participate or get over it. Its that simple.
To tie this into the article. I do not think the girls should have ever taken this to court. That irritates me. Such a minor problem is becoming such a big deal because two people wanted to feel included on a city council prayer. But hey, like i said. I am apart of every "majority" group there is. So I will be a little ignorant on the issue.
Ryan Jackson
Period Five
On a side note... Separation of Church and State, why was there a prayer in the Town Hall at all? With this being asked, I still do not think this is a legal matter. I do not see it as a big deal. Even if it was another religion other than mine being preached during the city council meeting. I do not know what that feeling would be like, but I am sure I would not want to bring my petty issue to court. Just my opinion.
DeleteRyan Jackson
Personally I have no problem with any religion but there needs to be a better separation of church and state. I side with the two women, people don't go to council meetings to listen to prayers, they go to get things done, to solve problems! If i wanted to hear prayers then I would go to church not a council meeting. The worst part is that they basically got told to suck it up, there shouldn't be any kind of prayer in government because this creates problems, there will always be a majority that will make the minority feel inferior even if they got the same opportunity to say their own prayers.
ReplyDeleteAlan Campos
Per.2
I agree Alan, people should be at council meetings for action, not a secondary mass.
DeleteIf minority groups feel uncomfortable during government meetings where a form of religion such as Christianity seems to be imposing, the minorities tend to feel attacked. As a religious Hindu who has traveled all over the world in predominantly Christian countries, I do at times feel uncomfortable not practicing Hinduism, but I have no right to interfere with those who are practicing their religion so that is why I am willing to acknowledge:
ReplyDeleteNo religious group should be hindered from following its principles and tenets.
I do request though that at a government meeting, if a Christian prayer is taking place that minority groups can form coalitions in the meeting to practice their beliefs so no one feels attacked.
I believe that church and state should be kept separate because it is capable of producing the least havoc.
Rishov Chatterjee
P2
I think what this council did was out of line and I am glad that Stephens and Galloway were supported by the court's decision. I have no problem with religion; however, it should not be "endorsed" by a body of our government. Its not their place to support one view over others, and to tell these two individuals to leave or not listen is not just rude, but also unprofessional and probably unconstitutional. It may be different if the council handled the situation in a different manner- say if they were more sensitive to the views of people that probably got them elected in the first place (if they're politically active enough for attending council meetings, they probably have a high enough efficacy to vote.) Also, they asked a Christian minister to pray specifically to Jesus Christ before each opening rather than a general and brief prayer, or allow anybody to say their own prayer. If attendants felt uncomfortable, the council, in my opinion, probably should have accepted the dissenting feelings towards the prayer and ceased the prayer. In my opinion, as an extreme example, its no different than if there were KKK members that dominated the council and they opened it with white supremacy slander with minorities present, and those minorities felt uncomfortable or offended. What makes religion any different? An exception to our "political correctness?" I think there needs a better separation of church and state. But I do realize it may not fully be diminished due to the fact that there are so many practicing theists in America, and I feel general prayers that are brief will not affect all too many, even atheists.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Hoff P.2
DeleteI believe that there should be an absolute separation of church and state. As a Christian, I am not offended by overtly Christian prayers, but I also have to think about those few others that may feel uncomfortable with the prayer. Yes, it's true that it is easy to get up and leave, but then what does that say about the care the government may give about how m its minorities may feel. If a prayer is to be done maybe a not so over the top Christian prayer hailing Jesus' name. Just a prayer that covers all concerns and ushers in peace of what ever decision is being made. Or possibly no prayer at all (but think we as a people are too stuck wit tradition to really give it up completely)
ReplyDelete~Leia Parnell, Period 2~
I certainly believe that church and state should be completely separate. Religious preferences has forever seemed to affect the way government runs and conflicts of interests always seems to cause some problems. Pertaining to the article specifically, enforcing a Christian prayer leaves those of a non-Christian faith feeling ignored and awkward standing there listening to something they don't believe in. Prayers that include all forms of religion might improve the situation however issues always arise out of religion being presented in government and I believe if the two aren't separated, these problems will continue. I understand how this "blending of church and state" might seem okay to certain people, but just because you don't see a problem with leading a Christian prayer in a town hall meeting, doesn't mean someone else won't.
ReplyDeleteKristina Rosales Period 2
I can definitely see where the women were coming from in this situation. Personally, I wouldn't mind a Christian prayer, but if I weren't, it would be uncomfortable for me to be in the presence of that kind of prayer. I believe what that town meeting did WAS an endorsement; it was especially not fair that they said "If you don't like it, then leave." The town meeting should be religiously neutral because it is government run. I don't really think that the "endorsement test" is justified because people should not have to choose between exercising their religious freedom and participating in government-run institutions.
ReplyDeleteShannen Maghanoy
Period 5
In my opinion, I still believe that the government is still explicitly endorsing religion by endorsing prayers. Yes, some may argue that allowing prayers are to "reflect the diversity" of the town, but the principle of the separation of church and state still exists. Allowing prayers evidently blur the line of separation between the two entities. Evidently, by allowing prayers, it would cause an amount of bias and ultimately trouble. The church could influence the state and the state could influence the church.
ReplyDelete- Timmy Jeng
#Period5
I don't see this as government trying to endorse a specific religion. Although the prayer being said at that town meeting is overtly Christian, not only are the majority of the members Christian but it is something that has become a tradition for that town's council meetings. They were not trying to force their religion on Galloway or Stephens by saying they could not listen if they did not want to. I don't understand why either one would feel like outcasts, since they are only stepping out for the prayer because it conflicts with their religion. It didn't say anywhere that they were then excluded from the entire meeting for not listening to the prayer. In an ideal world the people in the meeting would acknowledge that having a Christian prayer made a few people uncomfortable and not carry out with it but the world is not ideal and usually if something works for the majority of the population then it is seen as acceptable. If the situation was switched to where, for example, the majority of the members at the meeting were Jewish and they wanted to say their own prayer, even though two Christians were also there, they would tell them the same thing, that they do not have to listen or participate. Basically, I see this as an acceptable blending of church and state because it is accepted by the majority, is not being forced onto those with different views, and because it is specific to the board meeting of that town. I don't see how it would be right to say the government is endorsing the Christian religion if they don't make the entire state feel like they have to participate. The people of the board meeting in Greece, New York were not trying to force there religion on anyone or being oppressive to other religions. They were only exercising their own freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteRobin Tajingwa
P.5
I think that government is endorsing religion by allowing denominational prayers to be recited at city council meetings. The Atheist and Jewish individual were allowed to leave but then they may have missed the meeting and had something important to say. The government would be saying that in this case that one religion is better than another. The city council would have to say a prayer for each religion present and find a solution to satisfy the atheists in order for this to occur. Just because the majority agrees to practice a certain religion doesn't mean everyone does. Even if no one speaks up, it doesn't mean that they agree with a certain religion. This could be happening all across the country but people are afraid to speak up, in fear of being judged against. This instance is not an acceptable blend of state and religion.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Dynes
Period 3
I think that the action of saying a prayer is fine but it starts to cross the line when instead of a council member or resident says the prayer they have a priest come to say it. Everything is ok in moderation, i agree that they should be able to have a prayer but they should either be vague enough to include everybody or let a different group lead the prayer every meeting. I do not think that the supreme court should allow there to be favoring in schools and other govt. establishments. Although others would not have to participate it still isolates the minorities away and is unfair to them. There should be complete separation of church and state because it would make deciding issues on this subject much easier and also alot more fair.
ReplyDelete-Austin McMillin P.5
I agree with the "nonprefentialist" interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Personally, I find a certain amount of blending of Church and State appropriate. However, this was not the case in the city council meeting in Greece, New York. The overtly Christian prayer wasn't necessarily the issue, the lack of prayer and representation of other religions was the problem. This lack of representation creates an enviornment of Christian supremacy. The Jewish and Atheist women, having legitimate business at the city council meeting, were subjected to overtly Christian prayer. Being equal citizens of the city, both women should have the right to hear their own religious prayer in a city council meeting. However, if the majority is upset by non-Christian prayer, then they should understand what is given to one religion cannot be taken away from another. In this instance, there is either complete separation, blending, or treating everyone the same. I believe in equality and the treatment of all religions equally. What is done for one, must be done for all.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Munoz period 3
Being a Christian I have no problem with prayer before the meeting. But I can see how others would feel excluded with because before every meeting it seems as if they are careering to Christians. I take a more "nonpreferentialist" approach, if one group get to have prayer others should be able to have prayer as well. This would show no special treatment towards one particular religion.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Nunez P.5
i honestly have no problem with prayer before a meeting. After all our country was made involving Christ or per say a God that the majority of the country believed in. I don't believe now we should change or go away from what was previously taught. As long as it doesn't offend any parties in attendance a prayer should be permissible by the attendees. Even those in opposition should at least bow their heads out of respect but don't have to believe the words being said if they are not of the religion.
ReplyDeleteAmani Alexander
per.3
I see it as being neither endorsement nor blending. I feel that by allowing these counties to hold these prayers they are just showing of how little importance this issue is to the Obama administration. I believe that prayers should be done as per request and done by a volunteer. This would make the prayer non-compulsory and allow any group to hold a prayer. For me I don't care if you want to pray before a meeting, I simply won't participate. However, I feel that people of other religions should learn to alter the prayer to match their own beliefs because in the end almost all religions are identical just with different names for their respective diety/ies.
ReplyDeleteAustin Young
Per. 5
The government is, in my opinion, not endorsing a religion in this circumstance. With the traditional prayer comes what it is in and of itself, a longheld tradition. By allowing these minorities whom want to go against the majority's longheld tradition succeed, rule of the minority has succeeded.
ReplyDeleteIf the "overtly Christian" prayer indeed upsets the majority to the extent where reform is needed, then the prayer would be done with. Instead, if the Atheists or Jewish receive what they want, wouldn't there be a bias for these religious groups?
The fact that the prayer was held in a Christian manner does not have much relevancy. If the meeting were to be led in a Jewish fashion, the exact same thing would occur UNTIL the people, the majority call forth to change the practices.
-Simon Lee
P. 5
Opening a meeting in prayer does not necessarily endorse religion, however, when a particular religion is being favored, such as Christianity in the town of Greece, it is reasonable for Garroway to feel uncomfortable. Now since it is too complicated to distinguish which type of prayer is permitted, or to what deity it is addressed to, it would be safe to just prohibit prayer all together from government events. The purpose of these town meetings were to communicate CIVIL issues, not moral or religious ideals. It would save much time and dispute if people were to just respect each other's beliefs, and avoid praying or addressing a deity during government events.
ReplyDeleteIliana De Hoyos p.3 (absent)
I believe that the government/city council isn't endorsing anything. The two women that were at the meeting went voluntarily the weren't forced. If they were forced to participate in the prayer it would be incorrect. But they were given the option to ignore it. They need to not be sensitive like they need to man up and understand that they went freely to this meeting. Its not a strong argument that only 2 people complained, the prayer could've been going on for months! Who is to say that these women aren't regulars to the city council? They just need to toughen up.
ReplyDeleteNick De La Rosa
P3
my bad wrong day on my syllabus
DeleteOpening in a prayer for a city council meeting seems strange to me in the first place. Before reading this article I was under the impression that prayer of any sort was not lawful in any public institution run by the city. Usually, a prayer is something we do in church, or in another religious institution. However, the fact that these girls thought it necessary to bring this issue to court seemed a bit excessive to me. Nevertheless, prayer to Jesus would make any non- Christian uncomfortable, especially if it is taking place at a City council meeting. I agree though that the prayer should be left out of these kind of meetings. Me, being a Christian, I would feel very uncomfortable if the City council started the meeting with an Islamic, or Jewish prayer. Having any sort of religious acts pertaining to one specific religion while there are people from different religions-or lack thereof-preset, will inevitably lead to problems and they have, and until church and state are completely separated, the problems will continue.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Mikhail P5