A few weeks ago the Palm Coast City Council started having a moment of silence at the top of its meetings. Then one of them proposed praying out loud by way of an “invocation,” which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “an act of invoking or calling upon (God, a deity, etc.) in prayer or attestation,” making the two terms–prayer or invocation0–interchangeable. Last month council members directed their attorney to draft a how-to.
The council discussed the proposed policy today in what turned into an unusually absorbing and equally civil hourlong seminar on the First Amendment, the limits of expressions of belief in government settings, and the unintended and potentially offensive consequences of an open-invocation policy.
The council will vote on April 4 on whether to adopt a policy still evolving with changes it requested today. The mayor wants a unanimous decision “on something at this magnitude,” he said, whatever the result.
Based on today’s discussion and the written document, prayers “may be secular or nonsecular in nature,” but the tone would be religious. The changes further narrow the scope of those offering invocations to expressly religious leaders or clergy members. It isn’t spelled out in the letter of the policy, but its spirit appears to leave little room for doubt: atheists may be out of favor: no invocations by them, or any sects or cults not conventionally recognized as religious, though if that’s the case, the city could be making itself vulnerable to legal challenges. The policy skirts around those ambiguities. One council member did not.
If no person turned up to offer an invocation, the council would default to a moment of silence.
Draft in hand, City Attorney Neysa Borkert briefed the council on how to have those invocations “based on the best practices for these types of policies.”
Invocations would be limited to one minute and kept to the very beginning of the meeting. Speakers would volunteer their time. Potential invocation speakers would be invited by the city through its website. The city clerk might also send out an annual invitation to all congregations in the city to sign up, but that part remains unclear, as its more of an operational responsibility. Those would be distinctly religious congregations, since secular groups are not considered religious.
The city clerk would be responsible for keeping the list of congregations updated. Congregations from beyond the city’s limits, in Flagler County–but not beyond–could also sign up, but they’d not receive an invitation by the clerk. The clerk would screen applicants, placing the city in a gatekeeping role at least to some degree.
Those offering invocations could not disparage any religions of beliefs, or political or social movements. The city clerk–whose workload was not dissimilar from Job’s even before the proposed policy–would keep a comprehensive list of all those signing up and offering invocations. To ensure that a variety of people offer invocations, and to not give the impression that the city favors one sect over another, no particular person offering an invocation could do so more than twice or three times a year.
No one at the meeting would be required to participate. The mayor would invite those who don’t feel comfortable hearing the invocation to leave the room–what the city attorney referred to as a “best practice,” but one fraught with its own risks, as it singles out individuals who don’t want to participate.
Neutrality is a basic principle, though even the attorney conceded that “neutral is a very subjective term.” Once the door to invocations is open, Borkert said, the council must allow representatives from all religions, and it may not dictate the content of the invocation. “There’s a case that prohibits us from looking at content,” Borkert said. At the same time, the invocation may not dictate belief, which suggests that the government does have a constraining role, since the mayor could intervene should that occur. The attorney did not resolve the contradiction. But nor have legal precedents.
Borkert cautioned that there could be unusual requests, say, by atheists, to offer an invocation. She did not explicitly say that they would have to be accommodated. Council members spoke as if they didn’t have to be. But, she said, “this is to just show clearly that the city is not trying to put forth one faith or religious belief over another, that we are accepting of all faiths to come in and speak, all faiths that are part of the citizens of Palm Coast.” The discussion was entirely premised on religious invocations, never opening the door to secular ones.
The policy Borkert originally drafted referred to read: “The invocation shall be voluntarily delivered by a local current clergy member, religious leader, or community leader.” Mayor David Alfin seized on the terms community leader. That could apply, for example, to the sheriff’s chaplain, who doesn’t have a congregation, but customarily deliver invocations, Borkert said. “It’s more of a catch all,” she said.
Council member Ed Danko asked that the terms community leaders be amended to religious community leaders. The attorney agreed.
The parameters were numerous enough to begin to sound like excerpts from Leviticus, prompting Council member Nick Klufas to ask his colleagues: “Does anybody else feel at the moment of silence kind of encompasses everything that we need at the moment? I feel like this is just going to be a logistical nightmare.”
“I don’t think this is a logistical nightmare,” Danko said. “I think once we get a schedule and a rotation going, it’s one minute out of our proceedings, and I think this is incredibly important.”
Theresa Pontieri applied the brakes a little and asked for more reflection about the proposal’s implications. “I’m a devout Catholic and practicing Catholic, but I’m also very respectful of the First Amendment and a constitutionalist, and my fears, I think that are probably felt by Councilman Klufas are that, right now I think up here, there are members that have very good intentions with this, but as with a lot of things, the pendulum can always swing to the other side when you have other people making decisions.”
To Pontieri, what words say are what they mean, and what a document doesn’t say leaves matters open to interpretation. The draft policy, she said, “is drafted very well,” but lacks “definitiveness with regards to what can be done and how this could possibly be abused. So when we have words like ‘non-secular and non-religious,’ that’s a slippery slope. That means that somebody can come to the podium and while they might not be able to blatantly disparage people based on these certain characteristics, it may not be in the best interest of the community to open it up, and then if you don’t open it up, you are violation of the First Amendment.”
She fears, for example, that someone could say a prayer and, citing the example of U.S. Rep Emanuel Cleaver, a United Methodist minister who ended an invocation in Congress in 2021 with “Amen and A-woman,” do likewise in Palm Coast. “I don’t ever want a prayer in this chamber to end with ‘a-woman.’ I don’t. I don’t want that,” Pontieri said.
“And I appreciate that. But we can’t dictate that,” Borkert said.
“I know that, and so that’s my honest concern,” Pontieri said, her goal being to prevent “anything offensive,” to her, coming before the chamber. “And so we’re trying to make decisions up here for something that’s very personal for a lot of people, when I think that perhaps a moment of silence allows people to personally do what they do.”
Pontieri wasn’t asking for the proposal to be withdrawn, but for it to be refined “to avoid something negative coming out of this in the future,” she said. “That’s just my fear at this moment.”
Borkert offered a more regional example: the invocation at a localk government was given over, by rotation, to a Muslim Imam. The Imam ended the invocation by saying “praising Allah,” the Arabic word for God that, for inexplicable reasons, tends to give some Americans apoplexy, as saying “praise God” in English, French, German or Swahili would not. “The city got emails from people that were appalled that occurred,” Borkert said. “The answer to that is, if you open the door, everyone’s got to be allowed through the door.”
Pontieri’s reserve was shared by Council member Cathy Heighter, who wanted to hear form the public about the matter (five members of the public spoke in favor of the policy Tuesday before the council), and by Klufas, but for different reasons. So the council left it to Borkert to refine the policy based on the day’s discussions and bring it back for a vote in April.
The mayor seemed willing to narrow the scope of the invocations to shed explicit sectarian connotations. “I want to underscore the fact that the invocation is meant to address city council members. It’s not meant to address the public at large or the visitors to the meeting,” he said. “It’s meant to address city council members to guide to spiritually guide them and help them in their decision making at these meetings.”
Historically that may be the case, when legislative bodies were not as public as they are today. Today, however, that may be a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the law: it is still spoken in the well of a public meeting in the presence of the public.
Klufas did not buy Alfin’s distinction: “If it’s exclusive for us, I have nothing against even doing a prayer circle before the meeting,” Klufas said. “We can do it in the back if we want. I just feel like this is potentially going to open up the door for conflict.”
So Alfin, borrowing from another local organization he did not name, came up with a proposed invocation more ecumenical than religious: “We gather here today with the intent of doing good work as the City Council of Palm Coast. We seek to represent fairly and well those who have given us the task we promise to leave all of our political differences outside and come together at our meetings as brothers and sisters for our community. May our efforts be blessed with insight guided by understanding and wisdom. We seek to serve with respect to all. May our personal faith give us strength to act honestly and well in all of our matters before us.”
Pontieri liked the invocation if it could lend itself to a slightly more religious tone. Danko objected: “I don’t think we should be writing words for local religious leaders,” he said. “I also don’t think it’s not just for us. It’s for the community of Palm Coast. It’s for the state of Florida. It’s for this country.” He then added the inaccurate but often-repeated claim, among contemporary conservatives, that “this country was founded on religion.” The founders in Philadelphia would disagree, their founding documents–the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers–being secular documents with a rarely passing nod to an undefined creator and, in the Constitution, a categorical prohibition against government establishment of any religion.
“It’s more of supportive of God, whatever their religious beliefs are, whether you’re Muslim or Jewish or Catholic or Protestant, it’s all about God,” Danko said a bit later, in what by then had turned into one of the more riveting, non-land-use discussions the council had had in a long time.
“Well, not quite,” Alfin said.
“So what else would this be about?” Danko said.
“That’s the problem, Councilman Danko,” Pontieri said. “We by law can’t can’t say that it has to be about God. If we could, we would be disregarding the First Amendment.” She deferred to the city attorney, who referred to Alfin’s proposed invocation as something that would start the meeting on the right foot, and could be read by anyone.
Alfin said he’d be willing to offer the example as a guide, leaving it to the volunteer to come up with his or her (or their) own words. “It’s not this way or the highway, but they’ll understand our message and our intent,” Alfin said.
Pontieri summed up the tone of the discussion when she said: “I just want to thank my fellow council woman and councilman for this discussion. I think it’s been respectful and very honest, and I greatly appreciate that from all of you. And I think that this is how we govern the right way.”
Borkert, who played her part in setting the tone, had earlier framed the presentation in constitutional precedent, which since 1983 established that “the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom” since colonial times.
A 2013 decision by the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, controlling law in Florida, set out selection criteria when governments are inviting members of the clergy–or non-clergy members–to offer invocations. The court ruled that the criteria could not disparage against members of one religion or another, or even against atheists, if atheists wanted to offer an invocation. The Supreme Court broadened that allowance in 2014, finding even denominational prayers permissible as long as there was no intent to dictate belief or adherence to that particular sect or religion.
“So this kind of establishes that yes, you can have a prayer at the beginning of your meetings,” Borkert said. “However, that comes with a number of conditions or provisions that must be followed to make sure that you can comply with the dictate of the establishment clause.”
Other local governments have thought about or implemented prayer segments into their public meetings, but without nearly the degree of analysis and discussion the council is undertaking. Bunnell city government’s prayer segment at the beginning of each commission meeting is a custom. No policy regulates it. Commissioners themselves say prayers from the dais, as commissioners, under the city’s seal.
An attempt by a school board member a few years ago to introduce an invocation at the beginning of board meetings was done by fiat, without prior warning or discussion at previous workshops. County commissioners a few years ago started speaking their own invocations at the beginning of meetings, also without prior discussion or grounding the practice in policy, though that practice appears to have stopped when Greg Hansen became chairman in November. All these governments also have a moment of silence.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Shawn says
Why are we wasting time with nonsense like this?! Your wasting staff time and resources on stuff that does not help with fixing the issues we have in palm coast. Fix things or get out!!
Alan says
Have you notice the City of PC Council as well as their realtor salesman Mayor speak about issues other then what taxpayers keep asking them to discuss and resolve.
They are a big waste of taxpayers money.
Jim says
This nails it. With all the critical issues in front of Palm Coast, let’s spend time on this. Keep Palm Coast employees busy tracking a who’s who of speakers for a minute of each meeting. I’m sure there will be no controversy over any of them. And later we can spend more time arguing about why so-and-so was selected. Great job, Mayor and council. Clearly you are focused on the important stuff like rising costs and new projects that will cost us taxpayers millions for virtually nothing.
Lisa Kopp says
Just keep the moment of silence, let those that pray do so in the manner they choose and continue on with the business of the city.
Dennis C Rathsam says
The decay of society, what happened to this new generation of people giving up on relegion. Our country was born with god fearing patriots. Our independence includes” In god we trust”. How did we lose our way? The founding fathers of our country believed in god, as did most Americans. Jews, Catholics, Prodistants, At school we had the pledge of alleigence, and a silent prayer. As diverse as all relegions are we all pray to one god. Kids need prayer in their lives, they need to know the scriptures. I think we need to take a step back, prayer hurts no one…Its a personal thing, but to stop it is crazy. Our world was better off in the years gone by. Society was kinder back in the day. We need to give oue kids all the tools to succeed. Folks, remember your childhood? I do….We all got along, we were happy, because our parents taught us well. Heaven, has a wall & pearly gates, with a strick imagration policy…Hell has no wall, and open borders.
Dave says
“The decay of society” agree .
The dude says
About as boomer as it gets with this one.
While you enjoyed your peaceful life in your prayerful, ultra happy happy, lily white enclave, millions of folks out there with darker skin had a tougher row to hoe.
This world is the world the prayerful boomers created. Now they complain nonstop about the inevitable fruits of their labor.
Michael Cocchiola says
I don’t know where to begin… first, our nation was not “born with god-fearing patriots”. America was born on the basis of secularism because the patriots you mentioned feared religious tyranny. Second, “we” all don’t pray to the same god. Hindus have many gods. In The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (re: Mormon), adherents can ascend and become gods. There is no Jesus in Judaism. Third, the motto “In God We Trust” is neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution. It only appeared on coins in 1863 and was not universally approved of by citizens at that time.
And then there’s your “strict immigration policy” at the pearly gates… not even Muslims or Jews who “pray to the same god? Kinda bigoted of you.
Heathen Lady says
I call bullshit! Yes, I remember my childhood of forced religion and prayer. Noooo, we didn’t all get along, and we certainly weren’t all “happy”! Get real.
KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT!!!
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Might want to go and look at early American history a little closer. Not all early peoples of America practiced any kind of religion let alone believe in a higher being. Most religions were practiced closer to the coast than as near as twenty miles inland with many splinter followers, of those religions you would be hard pressed to recognize most of them today.
R.S. says
Most of the founding people of this nation were deists. Deism is a strong belief in rational humans being to solve their own problems. Thomas Paine notably said: “The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”
DaleL says
The decay of our society, if there is any, is because so many citizens have forgotten our history. God is not mentioned at all in our Constitution. Religion is mentioned exactly twice. First, is that there shall be no religious test to hold office. Second, is that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
“In god we trust” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It was as the US motto in 1956 and did not appear on paper money until 1957. I find the phrase disingenuous, divisive, and offensive. Far better is the Latin phrase: “e pluribus unum”, aka out of many, one. It is an original motto of the United States and dates back to the founding of our great country. E pluribus unum is featured on the Great Seal of the United States.
From the founding of our country, not everyone has believed in the same religion, god, or any god at all. As proof I provide this quote from George Washington: “”If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists…”
[George Washington, to Tench Tilghman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers, edited by Saul Padover]
Steve says
Because it’s hypocrisy that’s why
Keep Religion Out Of Politics says
This country was founded not as a Christian nation but as one that kept religion out of politics. Do you have any idea why this country was founded? Why the founders left the tyrannical rule of the King of England that was forcing everyone to follow one religion? Obviously you have no real clue of history or the founding of this nation.
They may have had religion and that is fine, what is not fine is imposing and forcing that dogma down the throats of others and molding laws around those same religious beliefs. The founders specifically stated keep religion and government separate. It’s right there in writing and said many times by all of them. Do you know the definition of that word, separation? I don’t think you do and if you do, you don’t care. Do you preface every conversation you have with someone, “Are you Christian?”
In 1956, Congress passed a resolution making “In God We Trust,” the motto of this country, not the founders, so revise history someplace else and stop lying to serve your narrative that we must have God in everything we do. The using of God makes people do horrible things. It makes them kick their kids out if they’re LGBTQ. It makes people kill others because God says it’s OK. It makes people judge and hate because well, it says so right here in this Bible I can and should. It doesn’t promote love and peace and you know, wokeness because Jesus, he was the King of Woke.
Moral decency and kindness, in other words being woke, happens more so without religion. Religion muddies the waters because you know, that God of yours cares SO much what we do here, on the 3rd rock from the sun. If you believe he created everything, all planets, all universes and galaxies, and species, then he’s a bit too busy to care if people of the same-sex love each other, or someone transitions, or if someone leaves their country for the US illegally. Your argument sounds like a Tucker Carlson spin zone. He tans his balls. Enough said about him.
If you have eyes you will see all the people screaming family values and Christian love are the ones filled with the most hate. How many priests just this year have been arrested for pedophilia? At least four every week thus far. Religion is the biggest con. Note, I didn’t say belief but religion. They pass out their pans and take your money and live lavish lifestyles with private jets and five houses and do nothing for those that Jesus said you should help, the poor, the meek, the sick, and the hungry. Jesus said to love all. He never said anything about hate. Know who did? Men commissioned to write tomes about control, especially control of women. Funny that, isn’t it? Jesus marries a woman and she’s called a prostitute in the Bible. Jesus also kisses men on the mouth too, so take that for what it’s worth.
Lilith, Adam’s first wife was a feminist. She had her own mind. Her own life. But the men wrote her as an evil woman. Why? She dare think on her own. So they created Eve, a model woman for a patriarchal society, one who knows her place. Satan, he wanted everyone to have knowledge, to understand how things work, to have freedom of thought and expression, but that went too far, so he was written as a demon, a filthy fallen Angel that tempted men and women into his world of lawlessness and debauchery. I also bet you had no idea that there was zero mention of men laying with men in the Bible until around the 1950s. Prior to that, it said men laying with boys, aka children. It condemned pedophilia, not homosexuality. However, it was re-written because well, need I say more considering what the biggest pedophile network is in existence today – the church.
Might do you some good to, you know, study one of those useless degrees, like religious studies. It’s not what you’re spoon-fed in your Sunday service and it is most definitely what the founders EXPLICITLY wrote should NOT mix with government. They were very VERY clear about that and you people are trying to rewrite what it says right in the Declaration of Independence and literature they themselves have written about that subject. But this is exactly why Republicans are attacking education and removing courses of study. Keep them stupid enough that people will believe them over what history actually says. Looks like they got one in you. BTW, don’t tan your balls like Tucker, it increases your chances of testicular cancer and skin cancer but they won’t tell you that because you know, science and science is now bad.
DaleL says
Great post, if a bit long. As to the “tanning” of genitals, the idea for it is because of an error of judgement. It has been observed that higher levels of testosterone are somewhat associated with a darker genital skin color. The reverse is not true. Tanning genital skin does NOT result in higher testosterone levels. I doubt such tanning increases the risk of testicular cancer.
Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Senate 1797 and signed by President George Washington states:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
DaleL says
Correction: It was President John Adams who sent the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification in May 1797 and later signed the treaty after ratification by the Senate. The entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. 23 of the 32 sitting Senators were present for the June 7th vote. The treaty was unanimously approved.
Washington left office on March 4, 1797.
Denali says
Wow. After reading yet another misguided statement from Mr. Rathsam I was getting wound up to fire back a few words when I read the ‘opposition’ comments. I find it refreshing that so many folks have taken up the keyboard to try and enlighten the obviously under-educated.
The only point I can add is that the adoption of ‘In God We Trust’ by the 1950’s conservative movement was based on the flawed logic that all the economic prosperity enjoyed by the US was due to “God’s” blessings. Hogwash – the blessings enjoyed by this country were a result of the hard work and sweat of her people; “God” had nothing to do with it. Personally, I cannot understand how this embarrassing line made it past the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Prior to this absurd congressional action the motto of the country was “E pluribus unum”. For those of you who have forgotten, “Out of many, one”. This was the basis of this country, not some biblical deity. Our founders recognized that without the contributions of each and every person, this country would fail. They knew we needed the WASP, the Jew, the Catholic, the Hindu, the Muslim and folks with no religious views. They also believed that we needed people from all countries; that immigrants as well as those who were born here (notice I did not say Native) were needed to build and maintain a prosperous nation.
So the question that begs to be asked is “how will a country based on Mr. Rathsam’s obscene views ever succeed?” HINT – the answer is that it will not.
Deborah Coffey says
A very good summary of all the above responses to Mr. Rathsam. His comment is horrifying and I need not say more…because everyone on here took the time to enlighten him…if that is even possible.
Aves says
> Folks, remember your childhood? I do….We all got along, we were happy, because our parents taught us well.
Yeah, I remember good Christian kids bullying and beating me because I “looked and acted like a dyke” while their parents and the school board looked past me and said nothing was happening. I remember the worst of my tormentors was the child of someone in politics in Flagler County and I suspect that’s a lot of why it got overlooked.
> prayer hurts no one
Right, that’s why conservatives praying to have people like me eradicated from public society.
I like to tell Christians like you – because it’s always people in a Christian cult – to apply the “Muslim test’. if you’d be upset about X thing being done by Muslims and don’t want it, don’t do it yourself! So like, “I don’t want Sharia law because I don’t want someone else’s religious rules applied to me” (maybe you don’t like the pork prohibition or the 5 times a day prayer). Cool, I don’t want your Christian rules applied to me. And thanksto the exercise of freedom of religion, YOU can do your religion, I can do my lack of, and the state (as in any layer of government) shouldn’t hold yours up as superior to mine.
palmcoaster says
What about separation of church and state? Lets pray in our churches and at home and do not marginalize those that are non religious residents tax payers.
Today’s people and specially children need prayer at home as much as a positive examples.
Doesn’t city council and mayor have more important issues that really affect all residents still unresolved to care about? Or just work to increase totalitarianism?
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Too much of a slippery slope. Keep religion out of Goverment, have a moment of silence if they must, it’s safer.
Laurel says
I couldn’t even finish reading the story, it was so filled with stupid. What a waste of commission time!
Why must you religious people continue to force your believe systems on everyone else? Your missionaries went around the planet to bring God to indigenous peoples in paradise only to make them impoverished, slaves, separated from their families, forced to forget their native language, and made miserable. Incest, rape and slavery is often practiced by the devout. Why can’t you leave it at home, church and your like minded prayer groups?
I thought you were supposed to teach by example, not by bullying.
Dennnis: I don’t know what fairly land you grew up in, but manners have nothing to do with religion. Millions of people have died and been tortured in the name of God, back in your day and beyond. I have absolutely no interest in “fearing” a “God.” I thought God was supposed to love you. By your standards, I should be in line with the devil, yet I have never been in jail, never be arrested, have paid every single bill I owed, never murdered anyone, never coveted another’s spouse, never committed adultery, never robbed anyone and so on. Do you not see that the fear factor is simply control? Oh, and your “open borders” comment was something your God may not be happy with.
I’m glad I don’t have to go to these meaningless Palm Coast commission meetings, but if I ever have to, I’ll be sure I arrive late.
Just put a lid on it, please. Find something else to do.
tulip says
A simple solution of just having a moment of silence where a person can think their own personal prayer managed to get mukked up in complications of having to decide what are “legit ” religions and who arranging for different clergymen from those religions Palm Coast is very diverse in its religions and beliefs so leave out the clergymen, decidng what religions will be allowed to offer a prayer and LET THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE SILENTLY PRAY THEIR OWN PERSONAL WAY according to their own RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. God hears prayers whether they come from a clergyman or an ordinary person. Keep the clutter out of it then no one can complain their religion was “left out”.
DaleL says
A moment of silence should be acceptable. In fact, in Bible, Jesus, as told in Mark 1:35 and Luke 5:16, would go in private to pray. Matthew wrote how followers of Christ should pray.
Matthew 6:5 KJV: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…. & 6:6 KJV: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Those who demand a group prayer are not followers of Christ (Christians), rather they are hypocrites.
Skibum says
How many decades has it been now since the Columbine school massacre, when public figures stood at their microphones and seemed intent on publicly offering their “thoughts and prayers”, and that happened again and again after each and every mass shooting since. Regardless of all of those countless public recitations for even more “thoughts and prayers” over many, many years, the mass shootings continue to happen. The city council apparently has not yet learned that these public religious displays are not worthy of their valuable time that would better be spent doing the taxpayers’ business instead of invoking the name of God and praying for divine guidance in leading the city in the right direction. Don’t get me wrong… there is a time and place for everything, including any individual’s religious beliefs and prayers. But when someone in government, whether that be local, state or federal, proposes to turn it into a public display and can’t seem to do it quietly instead of in a public setting where they insist on others seeing them do it, then to me it smacks of fake religiosity more than spiritual reflection or guidance. You want a public display of prayer time? Go to church. A city council meeting is NOT meant to be a religious experience.
Jack Howell says
When we examine government meetings before the lawsuit by Madeline Murry, prayer was incorporated into the beginning of these meetings. Further school prayer and reading the bible were acceptable practices. It all ended with the Supreme Court ruling on the Murry lawsuit. Separation of Church and State is what we must adhere to, period. That way, the City of Palm Coast will not be open to lawsuits. A simple moment of silence should suffice. Council members don’t go overboard or crazy over this issue. We can’t go back in time and recover the good old days. We did this to ourselves! You have no choice but to deal with the morays and folkways of today.