NA Confidential: Burks leads the charge to restore mandated public worship in a specifically Christian manner.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Burks leads the charge to restore mandated public worship in a specifically Christian manner.

19 comments:

RememberCharlemagne said...: "Mandated"? I've been attending for a few years now. When was it ever mandated? If I recall correctly you have never been mandated to stand or participate. But now you seem to be insisting that it should be mandated that people of religious belief shall not have the right to participate in their government respective of their beliefs? Isn't his bigotry? Intolerance? Isn't this in complete violation of the second phrase of the religious clause in the U.S. Constitution?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“Prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” not allowing Mr. Burks or anyone of faith from exercising their "religious" belief is a complete violation of the first amendment.

Now, if you were “mandated” to participate, or Diane said only secular pray was to be offer then yours or my rights would be violated set forth in the U.S. Constitution. But that is not the case Roger, and you shouldn't pretend or say otherwise, it would make you a liar.; 12:01 PM
The New Albanian said...: The banner is literally correct, and lying isn't necessary.

An invocation is mandated by the ordinance, right?

In the past, almost without exception in my memory, the invocation has been formulated by Christian parameters.

I welcome liberation from public prayer by rote, but I do acknowledge that according to the ordinance, there must be an invocation.

As stated yesterday, I suspect that the real issue here is the Rev. Burks seizing the invocation to establish his political presence at meetings. I might be wrong, and am open to arguments otherwise.; 12:13 PM
RememberCharlemagne said...: No, the invocation isn't mandated. The ordinance only offers the opportunity for pray to be offered from any perspective religious clergyman. If none is present or doesn't what to offer then no innovation is given, which has been done on numerous occasions.; 12:23 PM
RememberCharlemagne said...: 30.22 Order of Business:
A. Invocation. To be given by ministers, if present of different faiths;; 12:36 PM
The New Albanian said...: Okay.

Given that Rev. Burks has seemed intent on delivering the invocation from now until Doomsday, we needn't worry about there not being a minister there of at least one of the many different faiths.

I would say that it is his aim to have it interpreted as mandate, but yes, I see your point.; 1:07 PM
The New Albanian said...: But I won't change the title. It reads nicely as it is.; 1:08 PM
Randy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1:12 PM
RememberCharlemagne said...: It's your blog.; 1:15 PM
Randy said...: This Supreme Court decision is pretty dispositive.; 1:22 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: I have a friend ordained via Internet. We all could be in short order.; 1:44 PM
Iamhoosier said...: On a personal level, I like Steve. We've never done it but I believe that we could sit and have a nice conversation over a cup or two of coffee. I think that he "tones down" the prayer that he delivers at council meetings in deference to others. Still...

Prayer, Christian or any other sort, has no place in an official government meeting. Especially after a meeting has been called to order. It's government promoting religion.

I stand out of respect to the people who "believe", not for the prayer itself. I would stand(if that would be the proper way to show respect)for a Muslim prayer or Jewish prayer or any other. Does anyone really believe that if non Christian prayers were offered that there would not be an extreme outcry?; 1:54 PM
w&la said...: The US Supreme Court begins each session with an invocation, with a paid (!) crier saying, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

At least two branches of our government open with prayer - both houses of Congress open with an invocation as well.

A paid minister to perform the Congressional invocations has been on the federal payroll since 1777.

Few are aware that depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments appear on the facade and upon the walls and doors of the interior of the US Supreme Court courtroom.

What bothers me is that the "invocation" isn't being taken up by many ministers of all faiths. The "separation" of church and state doesn't mean that ministers of all faiths (and no faith) cannot attend public meetings.

It would be great if many ministers would take advantage of the moment to "invoke" divine assistance for the efforts of the Nw Albany City Council.; 2:15 PM
Iamhoosier said...: Just because it happens, doesn't make it right. As for the buildings, we used to think that slavery was okay, too. Then we grew up. Way past time to grow so more.; 4:04 PM
w&la said...: I didn't suggest it was right or wrong.

You miss the point (and the irony) in this conversation.

Right now, the City Ordinances call for an invocation. I can't decide if a "moment of reflection" is an equivalent to the proscribed invocation, and neither can you. Actually, neither can the Council president.

If you don't care for the ordinance, petition your district council member, the council members at large and the Mayor to change the ordinance.

My personal feelings about whether or not public governmental meetings should or should not include an invocation don't matter in this conversation.

That would be like someone saying "the speed limit is too slow and too restrictive for the way I want to drive, I'm a good driver, so I'll just go faster than the posted speed limit."

If you don't like the notion of an invocation at City meetings, work to have the ordinance changed to reflect your feelings.

In the meantime, I personally would applaud leaders all faiths to step up and expand the area's notion of "faith."

And I would also urge the City Council president to discuss the definition of "invocation" with any religious leaders who would like to offer such services before the meeting.

"Invoking" means "to call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.". It doesn't mean evangelizing to those in attendance.

The City Council meetings I have attended seemed to me as if the Council could benefit a great deal from such inspiration.; 4:21 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Actually, it can mean calling upon anything, not necessarily a deity or spirit. There's a tremendous amount of fun to be had. Even now, we could all use pocket mirrors for those reflective moments.; 4:35 PM
w&la said...: Yes, exactly. Does anyone in New Albany want to admit to communing with Great Cthulhu and Hastur the Unspeakable?; 4:58 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Only if they're planning a one-way trip to eternal damnation. Cthulhu was banished at the last universal convergence.; 5:04 PM
Iamhoosier said...: My mistake then. Irony, like sarcasm, is sometimes hard to discern.; 5:52 PM
Iamhoosier said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5:53 PM