Saying 'Jesus' is now illegal

[gehenna]

Well, not exactly. But in California, you can't say the name of Jesus while offering prayer at government functions. Here's the related article from Christianity Today

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/008/11.25.html

I happen to feel that seperation of church and state is important, and officially sanctioned prayers don't need to be a part. If some members of a committee want to pray as a group or individually beforehand, I am happy with that. I suppose if you must have an officially recognized prayer as part of the event, then you can't limit it to Christian prayer. Really though, that's why church and state don't mix, because everyone does not support the same 'church', or want to hear about the same religious belief.

 

[Dyrwen]

I don't feel there should be prayer before council meetings, since it's technically government funded religious acceptance. I also voted that if one religion is included, all should be. I figure that's got better odds than actually stopping prayer in public all together. Odd story..

 

[ElElohe]

Well, not exactly. But in California, you can't say the name of Jesus while offering prayer at government functions. Here's the related article from Christianity Today

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/008/11.25.html

I happen to feel that seperation of church and state is important, and officially sanctioned prayers don't need to be a part. If some members of a committee want to pray as a group or individually beforehand, I am happy with that. I suppose if you must have an officially recognized prayer as part of the event, then you can't limit it to Christian prayer. Really though, that's why church and state don't mix, because everyone does not support the same 'church', or want to hear about the same religious belief.

What if you're not all that sure of these options?

I know what I would prefer, but I know what arguments come up if I say it. I would rather have a prayer to the one True God. But I can't say I'd miss it if there were not prayer. Of course, I don't go to very many public meetings.

A general prayer to no one specific is meaningless.

 

[gehenna]

I think general prayer to no one in particular is meaningless too.

 

[hiz_child]

I think specifically forbiding the name of Jesus is wrong unless they are going to specifically forbid the name of other religious deities. Where is it going to stop. If you don't like to hear the name of Jesus you have the right to say so but why should everyone be forced to stop saying it. Banning the name Jesus at theses prayers is religious intollerance. They should just ban the prayers all together rather than pick on one religion.

 

[Totally Transformed]

I think specifically forbiding the name of Jesus is wrong unless they are going to specifically forbid the name of other religious deities. Where is it going to stop. If you don't like to hear the name of Jesus you have the right to say so but why should everyone be forced to stop saying it. Banning the name Jesus at theses prayers is religious intollerance. They should just ban the prayers all together rather than pick on one religion.

Franklin Graham wrote a book called The Name in response to the controversy caused when he prayed in Jesus name at President Bush's inauguration. Graham rightly says, "The name of Jesus offended back in His day and continues to offend because The Name of Jesus shouts out a choice. Whom will you serve, give your life to, depend upon? Rebellious self-willed, sinful people want to retain the right to decide themselves what they will take. Jesus denies these options. Speaking on His behalf, the apostle Peter said, 'There is no other name under heaven given among men which we must be saved.' The Name is a lightning rod because The Name represents the division of life between good and evil, God and Satan, light and darkness, righteousness and sin, heaven and hell."

The name is a lightning rod and I'm not ashamed to be assosciated with the "name which is above every name." The wonderful name of Jesus.

 

[Megachihuahua]

If I brought this up at the Atari Forums (which I left two days ago, and I went back to stop the e-mails and found this forum) they would say "good, you deserve it you intolernt -bleep-piece of -bleep- narrow minded, you deserve to go to hell, why should you go to heaven more than Bin laden so -bleep- off!" No religous intolerence here...

 

[SonWorshipper]

Freedom of Speech does have it's limitations, doesn't it?


I guess according to some the name of the Savior is only allowed to be uttered outloud in a building that has a steeple on top? And even then, for how long?

 

[Woodsy]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is a fiction. The phrase is nowhere to be found in the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause simply forbids a the formation of a National Religion, such as the Anglican Church in the UK.

I support the Establishment Clause, but I do not support the lie of "separation of church and state."


More info click here

 

[hiz_child]

I don't really understand what Tribe just said but just suppose that there is separation of church and state. What right does california have to say that Jesus' name can't be used in these prayers. The state should not be stepping in to tell a particular religion what they can and can not say.

 

[kdet]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is a fiction. The phrase is nowhere to be found in the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause simply forbids a the formation of a National Religion, such as the Anglican Church in the UK.

I support the Establishment Clause, but I do not support the lie of "separation of church and state."


More info click here

You nailed it Tribe..amazing that people still spout off that phrase seperation of church and state and have no idea what they are speaking of

 

[Brimshack]

Yes, yes, we all know the phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution. Who said it was? And 'no' the establishment clause does not merely forbid establishing a specific church. But conservative activists would happily substitute their own wording for the actual text of the constitution on this one. If you get enough conservative Judicial activists appointed, you may even be able to make that one stick.

BTW: I think that considering the fact that conservative "Christian" leadership has been telling the lie that establishment decisions amount to laws banning prayer, etc. for years, I think we should refrain from supporting this lie. Notice that at least one poster has assumed the OP actually shows it to be the case. All you have to do is repeat certain phrases, and people will assume it to be true.

 

[eldermike]

Am I reading a different article? The Title doesn't actually fit. The decision bans prayer.

 

[Brimshack]

The decision prevents official invocations from invoking Jesus name on the grounds that such references make them into sectarian prayers. The justification for such invocations has always been that they are non-sectarian in nature. Whether or not that actually solves the proble, is one question, but the point is that when ministers go so far as to name Jesus in the prayer, they are no longer working within the paramaters of arguments in favor of such invocations.

But I agree the titole doesn't fit, becaus ethe actions at issue are those of the state. the title implies that individuals are not allowed to say the name of Jesus. I think the author of the OP was trying for a sense of irony, but too many people will jump at the chance to believe this old yarn.

 

[ocean]

I support the decision, the government has no right to endorse any religion.

As for the constitution, no the words "separation of church and state" are not used, but the establishment clause does imply that the church and the state are to be separate. Having an official prayer at a government event is not only unconstitutional, but it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.

 

[Totally Transformed]

What a shame that in the movies and just about everywhere in society it is ok to say the same of Jesus as a curse word. How many times do you hear people use our great Lord's name "----- Christ!" But it's not ok to use the name of Jesus in a prayer. What a backwards society we live in because using the name of Jesus is "offensive."

 

[kdet]

I support the decision, the government has no right to endorse any religion.

As for the constitution, no the words "separation of church and state" are not used, but the establishment clause does imply that the church and the state are to be separate. Having an official prayer at a government event is not only unconstitutional, but it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.

If people don't want to join in they can certainly refrain from doing so. No one is making them pray so their freedoms and rights are NOT being infringed upon.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

If people don't want to join in they can certainly refrain from doing so. No one is making them pray so their freedoms and rights are NOT being infringed upon.

Yes they are because the government would be endorsing religion and showing favoritism when it should be ideally unbiased.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"If people don't want to join in they can certainly refrain from doing so. No one is making them pray so their freedoms and rights are NOT being infringed upon"

So if a Wiccan lead a prayer at the commencement of a state funded event that would be ok with you? Or if The Four Pillars Of Buddhism were placed in the schools that's fine? All you have to do is look the other way.



Nobody is telling christians what they can or can't say. It's telling the GOVERNMENT what they can or cannot say. If you are a state funded agency you can not openly endorse a religion. Our government was designed to be an unbiased non partisan democracy, religion has no place in policy or events.

 

[kdet]

"If people don't want to join in they can certainly refrain from doing so. No one is making them pray so their freedoms and rights are NOT being infringed upon"

So if a Wiccan lead a prayer at the commencement of a state funded event that would be ok with you? Or if The Four Pillars Of Buddhism were placed in the schools that's fine? All you have to do is look the other way.



Nobody is telling christians what they can or can't say. It's telling the GOVERNMENT what they can or cannot say. If you are a state funded agency you can not openly endorse a religion. Our government was designed to be an unbiased non partisan democracy, religion has no place in policy or events.

Sure it would be fine with me..no one is holding a gun to my head making me recite anything..I can say my own prayer privately.
People are so hung up on this right to not be offended thing that the whole country is getting bogged down with it.