God in Government

America is a nation that was founded on Christian principles and anyone who espouses otherwise simply does not know History and the facts or they are deliberately obfuscating the issue. 

The vast majority of the founding fathers were Christian —and these great men believed strongly in the freedom of Religion and believed that the new nation should not sanction any one church; they specifically did not want a “Church of England” type of monopoly on religion in the new republic they were making.  Of the 55 delegates to attend the Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestant and 2 were Roman Catholic. (Franklin T Lambert. (2003). The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 

The United States Constitution expressly speaks to the importance of the free exercise of Religion in the First Amendment where it is written “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

49 of the 50 state constitutions’ preambles prominently refer to God.  Read them all here

Our currency says “In God we Trust.”

Multiple Supreme Court Decisions uphold the legality and constitutionality of the custom of legislative bodies engaging in pre-meeting prayer.  

Friday’s inauguration of President Trump featured multiple ministers praying to and giving thanks to God.  During his speech, President Trump emphatically stated that “God will protect America!”

We are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles.

And even though the vast majority of Americans who practice religion are Christian, as a nation we promote respect and tolerance for those who believe and worship differently than the majority of us believe and worship.  This is part of the reason we are the greatest nation in the world.

So even though a small, miniscule yet vocal minority locally complains about prayer in public among public bodies as they proclaim such activity is unconstitutional -- what they say about this issue is misinformed and untrue.

Pre-meeting prayer by the legislative body is legal and constitutional.

We are tolerant and inclusive, whereas these anti-Christiansare neither tolerant nor inclusive.

I suppose most of these intolerant folks have not yet read this decision out of the 4^th Circuit.  They should read it.  They won’t like it. 

Pre-Meeting Prayer: Is This the Next Domino to Fall?

This afternoon's meeting of the Escambia County School Board became an excruciating exercise in restraint.

Listening first to a dissertation from our attorney about the ins and outs of pre-meeting prayer and the pros and cons, and the potential legal pitfalls, the ups and downs, the how we can do it but maybe we shouldn't--left my head spinning like a centrifuge and the issue about as clear as mud.

At the end of it I think her opinion is/was that we can continue to do our pre-meeting invocations but that to guarantee no litigation a moment of silence should be adopted as our policy.

I'll only go along with that if I'm forced to, or if the majority of the board votes to adopt this as a policy.

It came as a refreshing surprise that three board members stated they preferred to continue the long established practice of having each board member, on a rotational basis, bring a guest to deliver a pre-meeting prayer monthly.

For a moment I thought the pendulum had swung all the way, the last domino had fallen, and the board was going to completely capitulate on this issue.

All around the country-everywhere I look-people seem to just bow down and genuflect to the loudest voices in the room with ridiculous demands that are counter to the majority of the people's values.

Doesn't look like that is happening here yet, thankfully.

What Does Greece v Galloway Say About Prayers before a Meeting?

From the Decision in Grecce v Galloway, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following for the 5-4 majority--upholding the right of governmental bodies to have secterian prayer before meetings: "the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion’s role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause. The Court thus held that the prayers in question do not violate this tradition and are therefore acceptable under the First Amendment...legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislative body, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance." Read more here Read about the other famous case dealing with prayer before a legislative assembly, Marsh v. Chamber, here