Back in the mid-1990s, a Tracy Press reporter complained about the exclusive nature of the public meetings she was required to cover. As a member of the audience, she was asked to pray to Jesus Christ, which didn’t mesh with her beliefs as a Jewish woman. Her concerns were dismissed.
Then two years ago, the city attorney suggested that our City Council avoid litigation by barring ministers from making specific religious references during the invocation. But the majority on the council opted to ignore that counsel and take a “wait and see if they sue us” stance.
Now, surprise, surprise, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has threatened a lawsuit over the city-sanctioned public prayer, and the issue has resurfaced. The nonprofit group said it has reviewed invocations at council meetings between 2006 and 2009 and found it clear that these prayers are “rarely, if ever, nondenominational.”
We’ve never thought that prayer should be part of the official council proceedings in our town, and we’ve editorialized against the council’s refusal to uphold the constitutional principle of a separation of church and state.
Tracy’s prayer policy may be inclusive in its intentions, but it’s exclusive in its practice of rotating only those religious leaders (all Christian, like the council) who have come forth to offer invocations. It makes political outsiders of those constituents who don’t share religious beliefs.
Is it intimidating for a Muslim, a Buddhist or a Hindu to speak to the council after enduring a Christian prayer? Is an atheist or agnostic at a disadvantage with an all-Christian council if he refuses to fold his hands during the invocation?
The answer shouldn’t be yes for even one member of our community.
That’s why we implore the council to respect all religions, as well as those without religions, by offering a moment of silence and reflection at the beginning of its meetings — instead of sanctioned public prayer.
No I don't know. Tell us. Isn't it more political than anything? Sorry to hear you haven't finished explaining your position, but I can only guess that we may never know?
Tom
Now, you've left everyone more confused than ever. The subject of invokations at council meetings is not unconstitutional. I would challenge you to use the Constitution to prove otherwise. You cannot. Churches, Mosques, Temples don't have to get involved in politics. They can show up say an invokation and leave. You must be confused with a movie about the "Queen of England" before our country was founded where the church had much more to say. Is that what you were talking about?
Tom
It's not against the law to hold an election at a church. So, no it's not necessary to get upset about that. It happens every election season and these laws establish clear guidelines. I think you probably only misunderstood the law in this case. Do you know what you are saying?
If the church does not want to start paying taxes, they ought to stay out of politics?
If they do not want federal interference, better not muddy up reasons churches are placed in the first place?
I believe this is what Tom B. was saying?
If so, I agree with him.
Tom
Tom
How do we know we wouldn't "favor" something else if nobody cares enough to share?
The issue is there is an open door and those people didn't bother to participate. You even doubt there is a diverse population here because if they are here they aren't bothering to participate or share their way of doing things?
And, after all, why haven't we heard from this alleged, "diverse population". See two comments down.
Just understanding this from the American Constitution not some way to attack a particular group that has upheld a Constitutional tradition since the beginning of the founding of the country.
That's what's been going on and that's why I support the editorial viewpoint of getting out of the unconstitutional business of sanctioning prayer for governmental meetings.
The Council should schedule a private religious invocation prior to commencement of the meeting. Perhaps keeping this a private affair (and out of the recorded minutes) would be a prudent gesture in today's society. Tracy, after all, had a quite diverse population which includes non-Christians.
The WalMart Winco lawsuit is another holdup by one of these self serving groups TRAQC or TRACYFIRST or Maybe the Same, who knows? WTF?
Wasn't there an article saying city has Union contracts and prearranged agreements timelines to deal with.
I'm sure they do practice their own religions on their own time. I don't think the issue was about people practicing their individual religion.
For example, no wafers were handed out by the pope, no one is required to wear benies or perform cirmcumcision, no bar-mitzvahs or wafers, or otherwise religious ceremonies were upheld as a 'state religion'.
Nothing except our countries founding invocation for opening of government meetings established by the founding fathers.
Oh, before you jump all over that. All were invited to volunteer. Not just one 'state religion' as the TP seems to falsely indicate.
Before you jump all over this comment, TRAQC lawsuit holding it up.
What's going on with the lawsuits holding up the Wal Mart Super Center and Winco?
Are they looking at ways to make some real cuts in spending or are they still dreaming up new ways to tax the peeps?
I think religion is a private thing and everyone should practice what they believe in their own way and at their own time without imposing their beliefs on others. The Council should leave it out of meetings and practice their individual religions on their own time.
You're absolutely right and it's not like they can't go down there to volunteer if they wanted. Only a few people volunteered to sign up and I don't see a reason for the Tracy Press to punish them for that.
Yes, I also noticed that picture on the front page of the Tracy Press attacking those who volunteered and trying to turn this around as something negative? Hmmmm.
Based on your comment, it appears you know very little about the legal system?
All religions are invited to share the invocation duties, this fact was saved for the end of one article. The article by Eric Firpo failed to mention that the Supreme Court of the United States settled the very issue of invocations in government meetings in 1983.
The ffrf people and the three people in Tracy who have a problem with invocations are well aware of the SCOTUS decision in Marsh vs Chambers, but ignore it and continue to state falsely that the current City Council policy is illegal and discriminatory, which it is not.
The commenters on the stories try to argue that the invocation is a violation of the establishment clause, the SCOTUS decision states that it is not.
The questions posed at the end of the editorial are clearly attempting to portray City Council members who are also Christian as intolerant of non-Christians and other religions.
TP editorial board, post your example of when community leaders have shown bias against non-Christians in performance of their duties. Put up, or shut up.
Hitler. He was, after all, a devout Christian who hated his mother's Jewish heritage to the point that ... well, you can learn all about what Hitler did to the Jewish people
END-QUOTE
Hitler wrote his own chapter, called "Mein Kampf". Hitler was NOT an American.
Americans fought and died in WW-2. Lady Liberty is NOT considered the matriarch of Hitler.