Non-believers prevail in suit against FL county that forbade secular invocations

[essentialsaltes]

The Brevard County Commission's refusal to provide representatives of the atheist and agnostic community an opportunity to give the invocation at the start of commission meetings is proving costly.

Two federal courts found that the county's policy of having only clergy give the invocation violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by discriminating in favor of certain monotheistic religions.

As a result, the County Commission on Tuesday will vote on paying damages and legal fees totaling $490,000 to settle the case.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Good news for anyone who values freedom of speech and conscience.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Brevard County Commission's refusal to provide representatives of the atheist and agnostic community an opportunity to give the invocation at the start of commission meetings is proving costly.

Two federal courts found that the county's policy of having only clergy give the invocation violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by discriminating in favor of certain monotheistic religions.

As a result, the County Commission on Tuesday will vote on paying damages and legal fees totaling $490,000 to settle the case.

No surprises there. The world hates Christians and will always oppose them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No surprises there. The world hates Christians and will always oppose them.

Uh no. Losing special privileges does not equate to hatred or persecution.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Brevard County Commission's refusal to provide representatives of the atheist and agnostic community an opportunity to give the invocation at the start of commission meetings is proving costly.

Two federal courts found that the county's policy of having only clergy give the invocation violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by discriminating in favor of certain monotheistic religions.

As a result, the County Commission on Tuesday will vote on paying damages and legal fees totaling $490,000 to settle the case.

If we have freedom of speech then everyone should have the freedom to deliver the invocation.
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.

 

[dzheremi]

In America, the same freedoms that allow people of my Church the right to worship and give public invocations when requested (as happened a little while ago in Michigan, if I recall correctly) allows others of different beliefs to do the same. This is a good thing, even if I don't personally agree with those other beliefs. This is really basic stuff.

 

[Occams Barber]

No surprises there. The world hates Christians and will always oppose them.

Stopping religious discrimination isn't a zero sum game. Giving non-believers freedom to deliver the invocation doesn't take from the freedom of Christian organisations to do the same thing.
OB

 

[Hazelelponi]

Uh no. Losing special privileges does not equate to hatred or persecution.

The term invocation means to appeal to a higher authority in which to guide the proceedings and is done often to lend gravity to the office and proceedings which follow.

Since atheists don't believe in a higher power outside of themselves, what are they even wanting to "invoke"? As the county has now stated, they will no longer have an invocation, but rather a moment of silence.

So in the end, it's just another war against any form of public prayer, not a desire to invoke a higher power to which they are somehow being denied

 

[Ophiolite]

Since atheists don't believe in a higher power outside of themselves, what are they even wanting to "invoke"?

That's an odd, prejudicial and inaccurate view of things. I don't speak for all, or perhaps any, atheists, but I see an immense power in the complex biosphere that has evolved over three billion years. I see immense power in the cooperation of humans in small groups, families, communities, countries and humanity at large. All of these are more powerful and more wonderful than anything I, as a single human, am, or ever could be.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If we have freedom of speech then everyone should have the freedom to deliver the invocation.
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.

You have a good point there.

 

[Chesterton]

The term invocation means to appeal to a higher authority in which to guide the proceedings and is done often to lend gravity to the office and proceedings which follow.

Since atheists don't believe in a higher power outside of themselves, what are they even wanting to "invoke"? As the county has now stated, they will no longer have an invocation, but rather a moment of silence.

So in the end, it's just another war against any form of public prayer, not a desire to invoke a higher power to which they are somehow being denied

Invocation - Wikipedia

Exactly. They've nothing to invoke. This is just oppressive shenanigans, and I can't believe any non-believers would admire what they did.

 

[JackRT]

No surprises there. The world hates Christians and will always oppose them.

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In many ways, these types of efforts are about exposing certain groups for saying one thing, but really meaning another thing entirely. Even if it's coming from a place of tongue-in-cheek or simply for nothing else to expose the other group, it's important to do so because it highlights what their true mindset is, and shows people what their intentions truly are when they try to weave their religion-specific values into the fabric of society in other areas.

Look at how the evangelical community reacted in Oklahoma when that whole thing happened with the "nativity scene on public property" debate back in 2015. They were upset because they didn't like the rule that said "no religious displays on publicly funded property". So they lobbied and appealed, and a rule change was implemented so that a nativity scene could be displayed, but only if that property was fair game for members of other belief systems to put up their own displays as well.

So they did...and the Christians put up their nativity scene on the property of the state capitol, and then when a group showed up to put a Festivus Pole up (to be funny and troll them a bit...and it worked, they got the predictable response) and another group put up an Islamic crescent symbol, they immediately got mad and started claiming that it was, once again, a war on Christianity, with a republican state rep saying "this effort to mock the celebration of the birth of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, does not illustrate the best judgment of those who manage our state Capitol"

If it was just a matter of the evangelical community fighting for "rights", that's not an issue. The issue is that when they claim they're fighting for "rights", but their actions and words suggest that what they actually mean is "exclusive rights"...and that's a big difference.

In a lot of cases, many evangelical conservatives don't want "religious freedom" by its true definition, they want the ability to do something that shows the public that "our religion is special and should be publicly revered as being superior to all of the others"

Among the evangelical right in the US, "religious freedom" is just a code word for "publicly endorsed Christian superiority"

 

[High Fidelity]

In many ways, these types of efforts are about exposing certain groups for saying one thing, but really meaning another thing entirely. Even if it's coming from a place of tongue-in-cheek or simply for nothing else to expose the other group, it's important to do so because it highlights what their true mindset is, and shows people what their intentions truly are when they try to weave their religion-specific values into the fabric of society in other areas.

Look at how the evangelical community reacted in Oklahoma when that whole thing happened with the "nativity scene on public property" debate back in 2015. They were upset because they didn't like the rule that said "no religious displays on publicly funded property". So they lobbied and appealed, and a rule change was implemented so that a nativity scene could be displayed, but only if that property was fair game for members of other belief systems to put up their own displays as well.

So they did...and the Christians put up their nativity scene on the property of the state capitol, and then when a group showed up to put a Festivus Pole up (to be funny and troll them a bit...and it worked, they got the predictable response) and another group put up an Islamic crescent symbol, they immediately got mad and started claiming that it was, once again, a war on Christianity, with a republican state rep saying "this effort to mock the celebration of the birth of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, does not illustrate the best judgment of those who manage our state Capitol"

If it was just a matter of the evangelical community fighting for "rights", that's not an issue. The issue is that when they claim they're fighting for "rights", but their actions and words suggest that what they actually mean is "exclusive rights"...and that's a big difference.

In a lot of cases, many evangelical conservatives don't want "religious freedom" by its true definition, they want the ability to do something that shows the public that "our religion is special and should be publicly revered as being superior to all of the others"

Among the evangelical right in the US, "religious freedom" is just a code word for "publicly endorsed Christian superiority"

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

There's a serious problem with people considering equality as persecution. Losing privilege to be placed upon the same footing as other faiths is not persecution.

 

[Occams Barber]

Invocation - Wikipedia

Exactly. They've nothing to invoke. This is just oppressive shenanigans, and I can't believe any non-believers would admire what they did.

Perhaps you should read your own linked, Wiki article. This is a direct quote:

As alternative to prayer[edit]
An invocation can also be a secular alternative to a prayer. On August 30, 2012, Dan Nerren, a member of the Humanist Association of Tulsa, delivered a secular invocation to open a meeting of the City Council of Tulsa.[1] Nerren was invited to perform the invocation as a compromise following a long-running dispute with the City Council over prayers opening meetings. The invocation was written by Andrew Lovley, a member of the Southern Maine Association of Secular Humanists who had previously used the invocation in 2009 to invoke an inauguration ceremony for new city officials in South Portland, Maine.[2]

In this usage, it is comparable to an affirmation as an alternative for those who conscientiously object to taking oaths of any kind, be it for reasons of belief or non-belief. ​

OB

 

[Speedwell]

No surprises there. The world hates Christians and will always oppose them.

Right. We need more 'freedom of religion' legislation so only right-wing Evangelicals are allowed to give such invocations.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's an odd, prejudicial and inaccurate view of things. I don't speak for all, or perhaps any, atheists, but I see an immense power in the complex biosphere that has evolved over three billion years. I see immense power in the cooperation of humans in small groups, families, communities, countries and humanity at large. All of these are more powerful and more wonderful than anything I, as a single human, am, or ever could be.

Atheists by definition don't believe in any creative or all-powerful entity which might guide the human being in a personal way.

From what I've seen most areas have allowed invocations being given by varied religious groups in their area, usually through turns..

The only reason "atheists " have ever not been included in such proceedings is because they believe they are the higher power.

I've been Muslim in the presence of invocations being given by those of other faiths and I've been Christian and been in the presence of those of other faiths giving the invocations and it's never bothered me.

The only thing I've ever seen bother an atheist is prayer. You can't even offer to pray for them as a friend when they're going through a difficult time without most complaining about it and going off into some rant about invisible flying spaghetti monsters and the stupidity of faith.

Why would they expect the rest of the world, of whom in excess of 90% of all human beings on earth believe in a higher power, to ask them to offer prayer?

Most of us believe God is more than a joke and find inspiration in such things. It reminds us of the good we should be doing in such positions..

 

[Occams Barber]

Atheists by definition don't believe in any creative or all-powerful entity which might guide the human being in a personal way.

From what I've seen most areas have allowed invocations being given by varied religious groups in their area, usually through turns..

The only reason "atheists " have ever not been included in such proceedings is because they believe they are the higher power.

I've been Muslim in the presence of invocations being given by those of other faiths and I've been Christian and been in the presence of those of other faiths giving the invocations and it's never bothered me.

The only thing I've ever seen bother an atheist is prayer. You can't even offer to pray for them as a friend when they're going through a difficult time without most complaining about it and going off into some rant about invisible flying spaghetti monsters and the stupidity of faith.

Why would they expect the rest of the world, of whom in excess of 90% of all human beings on earth believe in a higher power, to ask them to offer prayer?

Most of us believe God is more than a joke and find inspiration in such things. It reminds us of the good we should be doing in such positions..

Invocation is not limited to prayer; This is an extract from the Wiki article kindly supplied by @Chesterton in Post #11:

As alternative to prayer[edit]
An invocation can also be a secular alternative to a prayer. On August 30, 2012, Dan Nerren, a member of the Humanist Association of Tulsa, delivered a secular invocation to open a meeting of the City Council of Tulsa.[1] Nerren was invited to perform the invocation as a compromise following a long-running dispute with the City Council over prayers opening meetings. The invocation was written by Andrew Lovley, a member of the Southern Maine Association of Secular Humanists who had previously used the invocation in 2009 to invoke an inauguration ceremony for new city officials in South Portland, Maine.[2]

In this usage, it is comparable to an affirmation as an alternative for those who conscientiously object to taking oaths of any kind, be it for reasons of belief or non-belief. ​

OB

 

[Paulos23]

Atheists by definition don't believe in any creative or all-powerful entity which might guide the human being in a personal way.

From what I've seen most areas have allowed invocations being given by varied religious groups in their area, usually through turns..

The only reason "atheists " have ever not been included in such proceedings is because they believe they are the higher power.

I've been Muslim in the presence of invocations being given by those of other faiths and I've been Christian and been in the presence of those of other faiths giving the invocations and it's never bothered me.

The only thing I've ever seen bother an atheist is prayer. You can't even offer to pray for them as a friend when they're going through a difficult time without most complaining about it and going off into some rant about invisible flying spaghetti monsters and the stupidity of faith.

Why would they expect the rest of the world, of whom in excess of 90% of all human beings on earth believe in a higher power, to ask them to offer prayer?

Most of us believe God is more than a joke and find inspiration in such things. It reminds us of the good we should be doing in such positions..

The point is not whether or not what one believes, but why does there have to be a prayer at the beginning of what is a governmental meeting. And why are most of them Christian only?

That is the point I think you are missing. That it looks like an endorsement of religion if only one group does the prayer. Atheists have a right to ask to have a turn with everyone else. If you don't like it, just do the meeting with out the prayer.

 

[Chesterton]

Perhaps you should read your own linked, Wiki article.

I read it. It's mostly right, the part you quoted is wrong and doesn't make sense.

...who had previously used the invocation in 2009 to invoke an inauguration ceremony for new city officials in South Portland, Maine.[2]

​

He invoked the ceremony itself? ​