Comments on: Boise Christians Oppose Hindu Prayer

By: Don W

Don W — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:27:06 +0000

Untamedshrew – That’s a very narrow albeit popular view of the establishment clause. Most feel that it bars the government from declaring or supporting a national religion. The wall that lets no religion in has never existed and was never intended by the founders. For proof of that all you need to know is the First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights opened with a prayer and designated money for Christian ministries in Native American lands.

None of that changes my feelings that it’s not needed and appears to be wasting the City Clerk’s time hunting for clergy to give a prayer for each meeting.

By: dog

dog — Sat, 22 May 2010 05:25:05 +0000

Does government really need Jesus or any other god as a co-pilot? The track record is not too hot.

By: untamedshrew

untamedshrew — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:33:45 +0000

Hey Don! Freeom OF religion refers to the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. There’s a second part that actually does provide freedom FROM religion when government action is involved. It’s referred to as the Establishment Clause. Check it out.

By: Dean Gunderson

Dean Gunderson — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:24:37 +0000

Since the issue at hand is really the Establishment Clause, barring government from establishing a central state religion, I would be for setting aside the Invocation (since the invocation teeters on placing a religious rite central to the civic business at hand — implying that government can’t run without the blessing conferred by a pastor, priest, or guru).

But, there have been many times before a public hearing when it has been a comfort to hear (usually in the prayers offered) that the meeting’s purpose is to find the “good” in the meeting — and to strive to understand that well-intentioned people can honestly disagree about an issue, without being disagreeable.

I would offer that it’s better to be reminded of this (when tempers are hot), than to simply charge into the middle of an issue without that reflective moment.

When a politician does the reminding it sounds like he’s chiding the public, but when a neutral, respected member of the community does this (and this is more often than not a religious leader) the folks at the hearing tend to actually listen and take the message to heart.

Why not open the “invocation” period up to any member of the community that can be “neutral and compassionate” about the ensuing hearing — and, who can offer inspiring words? God, or God’s presence, does not even need to be part of the words spoken.

I know it’s easier to just pick pastors’ names out of the hat, but is a prayer really what we’re all needing at that moment? And by having a non-clergy member of the public offer an invocation (just as the clerk sometimes does now), does it rob a more devote citizen’s opportunity to offer up their own prayer?

By: Don

Don — Fri, 21 May 2010 03:45:50 +0000

Paul – It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I’ll cast my vote for dumping the invocation though.

By: Kappa TA

Kappa TA — Fri, 21 May 2010 03:13:54 +0000

I am not drawing any conclusions, but the power went out in Boise City Hall yesterday shortly after this story broke. The city attorney’s office was the only one spared!

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Fri, 21 May 2010 00:28:00 +0000

Hey, they are all just birds of prey.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:20:50 +0000

Timm has hit the very essence of separation of church and state. Why would anyone in support of our constitution want a religious invocation at any city council or BOCC meeting?

We all have a right to “freedom from religion”. I hope all this brings a screeching halt to these invocations.

I can’t imagine god would really care about these meetings even if SHE had the time or inclination.

By: Jason Walker

Jason Walker — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:21:30 +0000

Time to start practicing my Pastafarian invocation. Anyone have a pirate costume I could borrow?

By: diane sower

diane sower — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:17:50 +0000

For Timm: Man you are right about Christians receiving no persecution. It depends on the level of Christianity you are talking about. Evangelicals are dangerously pushing elections in ways that cause supreme court justices to be appointed, and allowed to make decisions on their own personal beliefs. Just ask attorneys who have argued before them. I am a liberal Christian who, in past years, was asked to leave a congregation because of my political beliefs. If anyone is doing persecuting, some of the oober right wing Christians are Claiming Jesus for themselves and persecuting others.