Elder Christofferson gives the opening prayer in the US Senate...

[Tacenda]

http://fox13now.com/2016/11/21/lds-apostle-christofferson-to-deliver-u-s-senate-prayer/

I guess I forgot prayers were okay in government meetings. 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2016/11/21/lds-apostle-christofferson-to-deliver-u-s-senate-prayer/

I guess I forgot prayers were okay in government meetings. 

Beautiful prayer.

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/7/2016 at 0:43 PM, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2016/11/21/lds-apostle-christofferson-to-deliver-u-s-senate-prayer/

I guess I forgot prayers were okay in government meetings. 

Constitutional questions aside. They need all the prayers they can get.

[The Nehor]

On 12/7/2016 at 2:43 PM, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2016/11/21/lds-apostle-christofferson-to-deliver-u-s-senate-prayer/

I guess I forgot prayers were okay in government meetings. 

Prayers for politicians have a long and glorious tradition:

 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Constitutional questions aside. They need all the prayers they can get.

Does the Supreme Court have any jurisdiction, whatsoever, over what the Senate (a co-equal branch of government) allows to be said during its meetings?   I am thinking specifically of the constitutional provision that “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.”    

[thesometimesaint]

The USSC has the Constitutional requirement to determine what laws are Constitutional. TTBOMK no USSC has taken up the issue of prayers in Congress.

You might like this.

SEE https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The USSC has the Constitutional requirement to determine what laws are Constitutional. TTBOMK no USSC has taken up the issue of prayers in Congress.

You might like this.

SEE https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Your link doesn’t seem to be working for me.

However, the senate’s rules are not laws.  And as I pointed out, the constitution explicitly gives the senate the right to conduct its meetings however it wants.   (“Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.”)    

[thesometimesaint]

The Constitution prohibits all three branches of the US government from imposing any religious test for any public office or office of trust in the US. Senators and Congressional critters are free to pray or not pray as they choose. Using religion as a weapon against your political opponents is not a good thing. IE; Would a Southern Baptist be happy with a Shia Muslim prayer?

Lastly, I want a totally secular government, while allowing all to worship how, when, where, what they want, consistent with the same right as others.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Constitution prohibits all three branches of the US government from imposing any religious test for any public office or office of trust in the US. Senators and Congressional critters are free to pray or not pray as they choose. Using religion as a weapon against your political opponents is not a good thing. IE; Would a Southern Baptist be happy with a Shia Muslim prayer?

Lastly, I want a totally secular government, while allowing all to worship how, when, where, what they want, consistent with the same right as others.  

If someone is forbidden from taking up their elected position in the Senate or House because of their religion or is refused access because they would not join in a prayer I will start getting worried. Most politicians have thick skins about others disagreeing with them. They have to. A good portion of their constituents probably hate them and tell them so regularly. If they cannot handle a prayer they can ignore they probably shouldn't be there.

Occasionally you get a thin-skinned weakling who cannot take criticism into office who goes to pieces when criticized and lashes out at critics like an angry child but they tend not to last long. I can think of one in particular I hope does not last long.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

The Constitution prohibits all three branches of the US government from imposing any religious test for any public office or office of trust in the US. Senators and Congressional critters are free to pray or not pray as they choose. Using religion as a weapon against your political opponents is not a good thing. IE; Would a Southern Baptist be happy with a Shia Muslim prayer?

Lastly, I want a totally secular government, while allowing all to worship how, when, where, what they want, consistent with the same right as others.

 

Since when does somebody offering a prayer at the Senate podium impose a religious test on anyone?  US and congressional critters are free to participate or not as they choose.  They are not even required to be present during the prayer.  

Not quite sure what you mean by using religion as a weapon against your political opponents.  Would that include a prayer for peace on earth and good will toward all men?   

Would a Southern Baptist be happy with a Shia Muslim prayer?  If he isn’t, so what?  Over the years, I have not been happy with a lot of what has been said from the Senate podium.  I  was not aware that the Senate was a “safe zone” where people would be protected from hearing things that would make them unhappy.  Perhaps there would be more religious tolerance in this country, if more Southern Baptists (and more of the rest of us non-Muslims) actually listened to a few Muslim prayers (and, heaven forbid, perhaps even talked for a few minutes afterwards with those who offered these prayers).  

Again, the constitution explicitly states that: “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Period.   Please cite that section of the constitution which you believe gives the Supreme Court (or anyone else) the right to tell the Senate who it can and can't allow to speak at its meetings or what the Senate may allow them to say.   

You may want a totally secular government.  But if, by that phrase, you mean a government that forbids the Senate from allowing a prayer at the beginning of its meetings, you need to amend the constitution. 

[thesometimesaint]

Their tax money is being used for a sectarian purpose.

Are you really unaware of why the Founders opposed mixing state and religion?

Why should your tax money be used for a religious service for which you don't agree with? Senators have plenty to disagree with without putting religion into the mix,

Actually I don't need amend the Constitution as no court that I know of has made a determination on the subject concerning the Senate. BTW Senators are free to pray in their own closet like Jesus said to do.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 11:43 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Their tax money is being used for a sectarian purpose.

Are you really unaware of why the Founders opposed mixing state and religion?

Why should your tax money be used for a religious service for which you don't agree with? Senators have plenty to disagree with without putting religion into the mix,

Actually I don't need amend the Constitution as no court that I know of has made a determination on the subject concerning the Senate. BTW Senators are free to pray in their own closet like Jesus said to do.

I was not aware that Elder Christofferson had received any tax money for his prayer.  

Are you really unaware that when George Washington took his presidential oath, he placed his hand on the (shudder) Bible and concluded his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution” with the words “So help me God?” As far as I know, none of the other Founders objected.   In his "Farewell Address," Washington called religion and morality “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity.“  Perhaps this is why the constitution uses the phrase “establishment of religion” rather than “mixing state and religion” (whatever that means).   

Perhaps the reason that no court has made a determination on the subject concerning the Senate is that the courts realize that they have absolutely no jurisdiction over how the Senate conducts its meetings  (“Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.”)    

There have been numerous lawsuits and threatened lawsuits over far more trivial alleged “violations” -- such as a tiny cross in the Los Angeles County seal (that virtually nobody noticed).  Can you cite one instance of anyone even attempting to bring this far higher profile  alleged “violation” before some court?   ( If so, how did it go?)  

BTW, what does the fact that Senators are free to pray in their own closet have to do with whether or not the Senate should allow them to pray in the Senate chamber?   For that matter, isn’t it a tad inconsistent to cite a religious teaching to support your argument that the Senate is "mixing religion and state" by allowing a prayer from the podium?
 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

If you allow one religion or philisophy to offer a prayer you open the door for all of them.

A satanist led the prayer at Pensacola council meeting.  It caused a big stir.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

40 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

If you allow one religion or philisophy to offer a prayer you open the door for all of them.

 

This may well be true for a city council but not for the Senate.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, the constitution explicitly gives the Senate the right to make its own rules.  (“Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.”)    The courts have no jurisdiction over how the Senate conducts its meetings.

 The fact that the Senate allowed representatives of other religions to offer prayers did not obligate it to allow Elder Christofferson or any other Mormon to offer a prayer.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

5 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

 The fact that the Senate allowed representatives of other religions to offer prayers did not obligate it to allow Elder Christofferson or any other Mormon to offer a prayer.

True.  It is legal to only allow the more popular religions to offer prayers in the Senate.  But from an ethical or fairness perspective we ought to consider why we favor only some religious prayers in a pluralistic government.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

True.  It is legal to only allow the more popular religions to offer prayers in the Senate.  But from an ethical or fairness perspective we ought to consider why we favor only some religious prayers in a pluralistic government.

That is imposing a religious test. The Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is imposing a religious test. The Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

I completely agree.  In a perfect world it wouldn't be this way.

I don't think the supreme court wants to step in to that mess.  This issue was debated in several local governments and courts. It attracted a lot of overly zealous people and the emotions ran high. Several of the proceedings got posted to youtube, the debate got ugly. Some people didn't want particular groups to offer prayers and others felt not allowing any prayers was an attack on religion.  The local church got a lot of people worked up over the issue.

The number of people who preferred to solve the issue by having no prayers at all were in the minority.

Senators get to pick which people offer the prayer in the Senate so we are unlikely to see any prayers offered by the most dislike religions.  As a result this issue is not likely to come to a head like it did in other places.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Sleeper Cell]

16 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

True.  It is legal to only allow the more popular religions to offer prayers in the Senate.  But from an ethical or fairness perspective we ought to consider why we favor only some religious prayers in a pluralistic government

Would it have been more pluralistic to forbid all religious prayers, rather than have prayers from a wide variety of religions -- simply because the variety is not “wide enough?”  Outside of Utah/Idaho, is  “Mormonism” really one of the more popular religions? For that matter, hasn’t the Senate, on occasion, “favored” Muslim prayers as well as prayers from other religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition?    

[Oliver_Cowdery]

58 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Would it have been more pluralistic to forbid all religious prayers, rather than have prayers from a wide variety of religions -- simply because the variety is not “wide enough?”  Outside of Utah/Idaho, is  “Mormonism” really one of the more popular religions? For that matter, hasn’t the Senate, on occasion, “favored” Muslim prayers as well as prayers from other religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition?    

I think the issue is trivial.  It doesn't matter to me much one way or the other.  In a perfect world I prefer that their be no public prayer on the Senate.  But I don't feel strongly about that.  There is a big portion of the electorate who would strongly disagree with me. So I say live and let live.  People would make it a campaign issue if the Senate stop the prayer and then we'd end up with a more religiously fundamentalists Senate.  I'd rather see this issue addressed again in a generate when the next (more secular) generation can tackle it.

There have been a wide variety of prayers.  But it is still always going to be influenced by politics on some level.   

Mormonism does have a really good image lately. I think Mormons have done well in the American's public mind.  We almost had a Mormon president. Mormonism is not be the biggest religion, but there are many religions that are disliked far more than Mormonism.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Sleeper Cell]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is imposing a religious test. The Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

The constitution is not designed to forbid the Senate from opening its meeting with prayer.  The Constitutional prohibition against a religious test explicitly refers to the criteria for choosing people for public office.  Not for choosing people to give a Senate prayer. 

[Sleeper Cell]

56 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I think the issue is trivial.  It doesn't matter to me much one way or the other.  In a perfect world I prefer that their be no public prayer on the Senate.  But I don't feel strongly about that.  There is a big portion of the electorate who would strong disagree with me. So I say live and let live.  People would make it a campaign issue if the Senate stop the prayer.

There have been a wide variety of prayers.  But it is still always going to be influenced by politics on some level.  

In a post-911 world, having a Muslim give a public prayer in the Senate is not trivial.  It is, among other things, a statement of religious tolerance and an attempt to reassure our Muslim citizens that we don’t blame them or their religion for 9-11. 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

6 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

In a post-911 world, having a Muslim give a public prayer in the Senate is not trivial.  It is, among other things, a statement of religious tolerance and an attempt to reassure our Muslim citizens that we don’t blame them or their religion for 9-11. 

I find the debate about banning or allowing prayer in government bodies trivial.  I put it right up there with people arguing about Target bathroom policy in terms of low importance and high divisiveness.

However, I agree it is good to make statements of religious tolerance.  Such statements are not a trivial thing.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

The constitution is not designed to forbid the Senate from opening its meeting with prayer.  The Constitutional prohibition against a religious test explicitly refers to the criteria for choosing people for public office.  Not for choosing people to give a Senate prayer. 

The Constitution was specifically designed to keep religion out of governmental functions. To allow the believer and nonbeliever their political expression in our government. The second you have a prayer given in any governmental function you betray that expression.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 11:02 AM, thesometimesaint said:

The Constitution was specifically designed to keep religion out of governmental functions. To allow the believer and nonbeliever their political expression in our government. The second you have a prayer given in any governmental function you betray that expression.

Then why did George Washington “insert religion” into his first official act as president -- his presidential oath?  Didn’t he begin his oath by placing his hand on the Bible, and conclude his oath to “preserve, uphold, and defend” the constitution by adding the words “so help me God?“  If memory serves, most of his successors -- including Madison (who essentially wrote most of the constitution) -- did the same.  Can you cite a single instance of any member of the Constitutional Convention ever objecting to this?

Can you cite a specific instance where opening a Senate meeting with a prayer has not “allow[ed] … the non believer their political expression in our government?   The Senate -- the home of the “filibuster” -- is hardly known for discouraging the free expression of its members

“The second you have a prayer given in any governmental function, you betray [someone‘s] political expression in our government?” As many of the comments on this thread have demonstrated,  having a prayer at a governmental function appears to stimulate political expression.  

[The Nehor]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:02 PM, thesometimesaint said:

The Constitution was specifically designed to keep religion out of governmental functions. To allow the believer and nonbeliever their political expression in our government. The second you have a prayer given in any governmental function you betray that expression.

 No, it was designed to protect religious expression without providing religious tests for office or having the federal government establish a specific religion.