Hellobee Boards

I'm fine with it. Mainly because I rarely see any of those prayers tied in with actual faith. If they're not sincere, I don't really see it mattering either way.

ETA: This is my perspective as a Christian. Since I identify myself as a Christian more so than identify myself as an American, my thoughts come from that place first. If I was thinking as an American above being a Christian, my opinion would probably be different in a lot of scenarios.

Regardless of sincerity or even intent, religion has no business being involved with government. I also object to the "...under god" verse of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Its unnecessary, and alienating to me as a non-religious person who doesn't believe in god.

So you can't say the Pledge of Allegiance with the word "God" but you can pray.... umm, no. Prayer has no place in government or any other meetings unless it's a gathering for religious reason.

"Kagan, writing for the dissenting minority, sharply disagreed.

She suggested that the five justices who formed the majority - all of whom are Catholic - don't understand what it's like to belong to a minority faith in America."

Gotta agree with Kagan on this one. I was raised Catholic but am now an atheist. I am all for a moment of silence, but I think prayer at government events is overstepping.

@Mae: In keeping with your intent, my vote would be No/Separate.

@PurplePumps: The words "under god" were added on Flag Day in 1954. The Supremes have ruled on several occasions that you can neither be compelled to recite it nor punished for doing so.

I don't think religion or type of religious moment is appropriate for a government event.

Will be interesting to see what happens when another religion eventually becomes the majority. Pretty sure they'd feel differently if they were forced to listen to a prayer they didn't believe in.

@mrbee: Yep. I'd be willing to bet most (if not all) of those that voted "Yes" in this poll are Christian.

I voted they should be allowed to pray even though I am an atheist. To me, they are just words and if it makes someone else feel good then they can say/do whatever they want. It would be nice if they would sample from more religions than Christianity though.

@Meltini: I get that and I feel the same way--I would not be personally offended if I were at a government event and a prayer was said; I would just ignore it. But I realize it has the potential to offend others and I think that's what matters when deciding the law of the land.

@looch: I skimmed the opinion (it's 80 pages long so I don't have time now to read the entire thing). The petitioners in this case were actually just asking that the prayers refer to a generic God instead of God/Jesus Christ, so it's not like they were even asking for prayer to be banned altogether.

Regardless of how generic or non-denominational a prayer is, it should not be involved in a government event.

I think there should be a strict line between government and religion. It is way too blurred the way it is now. ("In God we trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, etc)

@LovelyPlum: I lean more toward, "all religions are okay" versus, "only Christianity is ok" (not that you said that, but I definitely get that idea from some political standpoints). For example, people that oppose gay marriage due to their own religion. Well that's fine, don't marry a gay person...but it should not be used as an argument to block gay marriages for people whose religion *doesn't* oppose that.

I think a moment of silence is actually a good idea! then whoever, wherever can do their own thing whether they stand and pray or stand and plan dinner.

@Mae: I pretty much never believe "X% of XX think Y" lol. Usually the sample size they take is small, or from a certain location or something so it's almost always skewed.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for there to be prayer of any sort before, during or following government events….however, I also think that public “prayer” has sort of just become an accepted, almost secular-like event before meetings and it doesn’t bother or offend me either. I don’t think it’s sincere, it’s more form than anything else; like many other things (religious and secular). But, on principal, I do believe church and state should be separate.

As an aside, I wish more people paid attention to or cared about WHY “under God” was added when it was, and why it wasn’t added on our money or the pledge of allegiance before the 1950’s.

Also, as others have asked, do you think the majority of nationwide “yes” votes (not necessarily in this poll, just the CNN ones, etc.) be in favor of officially sanctioned Muslim prayers before events? How about satanic prayers? (Prayer probably being the wrong word in both cases, but hopefully my intent is clear).

Justice Kagan said it best:

For centuries now, people have come to this country from every corner of the world to share in the blessing of religious freedom. Our Constitution promises that they may worship in their own way, without fear of penalty or danger, and that in itself is a momentous offering. Yet our Constitution makes a commitment still more remarkable— that however those individuals worship, they will count as full and equal American citizens. A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim (and so forth)—each stands in the same relationship with her country, with her state and local communities, and with every level and body of government. So that when each person performs the duties or seeks the benefits of citizenship, she does so not as an adherent to one or another religion, but simply as an American. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion because I think the Town of Greece’s prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality—the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian.
...
The practice at issue here differs from the one sustained in Marsh because Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content. Still more, Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any wayreach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that everycitizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.