Here's the story:

Link



I am somewhat alarmed that the city reportedly paid $101,000 for a rally called "A Day of Faith: Arming our Prayer Warriors." It's hard for me to see how such a rally cannot be an official government endorsement of religion. The city's defense seems pretty feeble to me.



To be debated:

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

From the article:Hmm... prayer reduced the murder rate by about 50%. Seems they buried the lead...

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

It appears possible due to the way city funds were used. It seems the city may have crossed the line by sponsoring the event instead of coordinating with interfaith groups would should have organized and sponsored it. Why?

There are two clauses of the first amendment at issue: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both clauses are always in effect, but because the city sponsored the event, the establishment clause was dominant. If the interfaith groups had sponsored the event, the free exercise clause would have been dominant, and there would probably be no serious claim of establishment.

The Supreme Court interprets the free exercise clause to mean, among other things, that the city cannot discriminate against religious groups when providing access to city resources (Gentala v. City of Tucson, Good News Club v. Milford Central School). For example, if a city were to pay for extra police, emergency personnel, planning, coordination, and cleanup for events sponsored by secular organizations (Lions, Kiwanis, not the city itself), then the city can't withhold the same services from events sponsored by religious organizations (Knights of Columbus, churches, synagogues, mosques) or charge them more than they charge secular groups. So, a certain amount of city funding does occasionally get spent on religious events through the proper channels under the free exercise clause. IMHO, it would be better if cities billed sponsors of all non-city events for extra city services, but that's up to city government.

By helping sponsor this event, the city became more in danger of violating the establishment clause than the free exercise clause. There are a whole host of procedures cities can follow to avoid violating the establishment clause for city-sponsored events with inescapable religious overtones, most of them arising from cases involving holiday celebrations, invocations at city meetings, swearing-in ceremonies, memorial services, and other events where expressions of faith are customary. These procedures can get intricate, which is probably part of the reason why the Jacksonville Mayor needs an "Office of Faith and Community Based Partnerships" to begin with.

In general, the easiest solution is to let religious groups sponsor events with religious overtones that don't necessarily require direct city sponsorship. Otherwise, an expert legal advisor would be necessary to help navigate the mess of case law that surrounds the establishment clause.

In this particular case, the religious groups supporting the event might be wise to raise the funds necessary to pay back the city (taxpayers) the amount the city would have charged them for a private event and thus attempt to make ammends by changing the event's sponsorship retroactively. Although a detailed review of the event may eventually reveal that the city did not actually violate the establishment clause, it would probably be wiser for the religious groups in Jacksonville to make nice with the taxpayers anyway.

No. It wasn't. In fact, a Day of Faith is not in any way a Government endorsement of religion. George Michael's song isn't either.

The Religion of Atheism is sowing it's oats so to speak and has apparently found a lawyer to help it out.

This is much ado about nothing. There is NO Separation Of Church and State anywhere in any official US Document. Thomas Jefferson is probably the greatest thinker America has ever produced and I know what he wrote in his letter about a wall but he DIDN'T get it into ANY official US Document. There certainly isn't anything in any US Document that says you can't have a rally.

I personally think all organized religion is a bad idea but a A Day Of Faith paid for in part by my tax dollars wouldn't bother me in the least. At least not anymore than any other stupid thing the Government does with MY money. Now if you had a Day of Forcing Everyone Into Being A Catholic I'd be upset.

BA- I hear where you are coming from- I am a big fan of Thomas Jefforson- but this issue came up in his lifetime and went to the supreme court in his lifetime, and his letters are and were used to help, as is appropriate- to discern what he was meaning in the constitution when he wrote it- and that lends some context of why he wrote what he wrote, and what he was meaning when he wrote it- follow me so far?

IIRC, the main reason we get this fundamental quote as "the wall of seperation between church and state"- comes from a tax in Massechusets- it was a "church tax" where tax payers had to fund the local church- and that tax was removed through a supreme court case- and Thomas Jefforson's letter became a big part of that case.Of course, as we see it today, of course the church lost- but back then, it was revolutionary thinking.

This is pretty clear cut, and the city lawyers were the ones that screwed the pooch on this one- they spent 110k bucks of city tax payer money to support the church. No person should ever be forced to know his tax dollars supports ANY church, unless, as Seamus pointed out, the rules are followed- equal access to all groups, equal funding to secular groups etc.

The Athiests in question only had thier legal fees paid- 5k, which is quite reasonable considering the silly mistake the city made- effective or not.

Even if the crime rate went down- that is no reason to sidestep the constitution,

I don't see how the Constitution was sidestepped. I must just be more lax on this topic than most. I really want to make sure everyone understands I don't care how you worship or you don't, I don't and I think organized religion is a badThing! So please before anyone assumes I'm some Right-Wing evangelical looking to impose Moses laws upon you - I'm not.

I just don't see what the big deal is. Governments spend money on tons of idiotic things. The Government of Jacksonville isn't endorsing any religion here. If we're going to consider this a slippery slope issue I'm with you but I just don't think this is anything to get worried about. I mean, look we print In God We Trust on all our cash... I don't feel compelled to pray... I'm not oppressed by these words. I see this in a similar vein.

Because using tax money to support a church is tactic admission and action of supporting that church- what, you think Churches don't have enough money as it is?

Seriously- I would not have a problem with it if they had done as Seamus said- SPONSORED the event-but NOT use tax money- yes, money get's spent on stupid things- I can think of where about a trillion dollars went that is about as stupid as it gets - however- an athiest should not be forced to have his taxes spent on something, a religion to be exact- that his beliefs are 180* out from.

I am very strong against one thin dime ever lining a pastor's pocket. That is why these cases came up so early in our nation's history- you probably know that TJ was ALOT more afraid of the church becoming to powerful than a monarchy being established in the US.

Jacksonville got off cheap and easy, a warning shot across the bow IMHO- sponsor a day, fine, just don't use tax money to fund a religious event!

What church?

What tax money was tacitly or actually used to support what church?

What tax is a law that establishes a religion - here or elsewhere?

Citations:
Although I agree with the sentiment, Reynolds has elevated the Danbury letter nearly to the level of the First Amendment for 128 years now, so it would seem to have an important place in our nation's legal heritage, whether or not I agree with how it has been interpreted in subsequent decades.

The letter itself borrows eloquent rhetoric from others (Williams, Burgh, and others). It is in need of its own interpretation, because the context of the letter and other of President Jefferson's actions indicate he didn't mean by that letter what many seem to think he meant. Jefferson wrote the letter in response to a congratulatory missive from 26 Baptist churches in Connecticut (which had established Congregationalism as the state religion) to reassure Baptists that the federal government would not allow Connecticut to deprive them, or any other group, of their First Amendment rights to free public exercise of their religion. However, Jefferson stopped far short of renouncing Connecticut's right to establish a religion, only its ability to stop other religions from continuing to practice just as freely.

Elsewhere, Jefferson mightily defended against the establishment of a religion by the federal government, he also defended the state's right to establish a religion so long as they didn't force its citizens to practice the religion. He did not think it wise for a state legislature to declare a particular doctrine as the state's official religion, but he also didn't think it was within the federal government's power to stop it; only to guarantee that a state's established religion would not violate the free exercise clause with respect to other beliefs.

In other words, Jefferson's wall interpreted the First Amendment far more literally than the Supreme Court does today. Supreme Court decisions (and perhaps a constitutional amendment) have clearly overruled Jefferson's interpretation, such that the federal government can now make laws preventing state governments from establishing a religion; and under more and more circumstances, government can now prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Those on both sides of the church-state issue should be honest enough to concede that Jefferson's "wall of eternal separation", originally conceived in the pattern of Hadrian's Wall or the Great Wall of China in limiting both sides equally, was torn down long ago to be replaced with a much different kind of wall, more akin to that of a prison, keeping those on the inside from escaping its closterphobic confines. If America really wants to rebuild Jefferson's wall, the Supreme Court will have to let individual state and local governments establish religion, observe religious holidays, and sponsor religious events unimpeded by the federal government. Although some may believe the Supreme Court's current interpretation is preferable to Jefferson's, one would have to ignore mountains of evidence in order to claim that Jefferson and our current system of laws are in complete agreement with one another. For better or worse, Jefferson's original version of the wall is now history, not law.

Although I am not a member of an organized religion, I do believe organized religion is a very positive force in our society. Hospitals, charity work, donations to relief efforts, all dwarf similar efforts by secular groups. In the U.S., organized religion does far more good than harm. (See Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide)

But to me, a "Day of Forcing Everyone Into Being A Catholic" is not extremely different than a "Day of Forcing Everyone Into Tithing To A Fundamentalist Evangelical Worship Service" through taxes.

If a church provides services that the government would normally contract out, then I don't think the government should discriminate against the religious groups who put in a bid and would submit to the same regulations as secular groups. I wouldn't object (on a church-state basis) if tax funds help preserve an historic church building which qualifies the same way as any other historic architecture.

The problems start cropping up when taxpayer money is being diverted to support the worship practices of a specific group; churches can take up collections to support their own expressions of worship, so they shouldn't also force the general population to pay tax money for worship services a taxpayer might believe are blasphemous or superstitious on the basis of a "firmly held religious belief". If big government wants to waste money, it can find plenty of other ways to do it than forcing people to tithe.

I have no objection for Jacksonville holding a memorial service for a young murder victim and to call on the community to reduce the murder rate; it seems to have worked. I have no problem with such an event being followed by an interdenominational, interfaith prayer service. But it would not have taken much extra effort to have conducted this in such a way that it would be clear the city wasn't directly funding religious worship, just providing an open forum and showing up. The organizers admit that they were a little sloppy about the attention to legal details necessary to protect such an event from lawsuits. I doubt there will be much of a chilling effect from the settlement, though. Similar events will continue to be held, they'll just be a little more carefully planned.

First... Bravo Seamus. Well done. Excellent post (SNIPped only for space).

I think ultimately we agree on many points.

Jefferson had absolutely no intention of creating a system to ensure Freedom From Religion, but instead a system that allowed for Freedom Of Religion or the Freedom to practice as you see fit and not have any Government stop you from it. See also The Church Of England. The Founding Fathers may not have known exactly what they wanted but they all knew exactly what they didn't want. A Monarch and an Official Chruch were certainly at the top of that list (despite offers made to General Washington.)

The USSC has certainly over-stepped it's bounds on this and other issues mostly to a less than chilling effect as the US Constitution has a way of fixing itself... see also The 18th and 21st Amendment.

In the case at hand I agree that not much will come of this and ultimately this is political hay and currently it's wet and moldy.

I'm vehemently opposed to Affirmative Action, yet we still spend federal funding on the belief. We spend federal and state dollars on thousands of controversial expenditures, of which could be a thread in themselves. The notion that atheists sue over something so positive is a reflection on America in general.

No one sues the government when they spend money on a statue that no one cares about, a fountain in front of city hall, a program teaching Mexicans to speak English, or even a spanish speaking employee at the DMV. I personally don't believe in these tax expenditures, but why can't I sue? The issue really here is simply that these folks happened to be Christianity-Based and it gets Atheists up in arms. Good ol' establishment clause and atheists... ahh... gotta love activist Judges. It's sad. The funny thing about America is that most Atheists don't like the notion that our nation is rarely secular, and most of the people in their communities at least associate themselves with Christianity. It's generally irks them to remind them that most people they work with, most people they live near, and people their kids go to school with are Christian (statistically speaking). I've found that in my experience, they rarely even like the mention of Christianity. It's almost as if there's a chip on their shoulder that it's a thread in the American fabric. Hence, frivolous law suits. Go figure.

I'm happy that someone mentioned faith based initiatives and the good they do, but CR, not all churches have money pouring out their doors. In fact, most good churches have a budget deficit because they can't fund all the good works they'd like.

Two Thumbs up to you Jacksonville. Even if you lose a lawsuit, I applaud the fact that as a city you stood up and recognized the value of prayer. Maybe we can find a way to fund this privately and march past their doors personally.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case in Februrary, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2006), that could ban "taxpayer lawsuits", in which the only injury listed in church-state separation cases is paying taxes. If the case succeeds, petitioners in church-state separation cases will have to demonstrate injury other than taxation, just like everyone else. As you point out, people who cite taxation in other cases as if it were an injury are usually charged with bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Although I understand the reasoning, I believe there should continue to be a special exception for funding events of a strongly religious nature, because there are principles in many religions banning the contribution of money that will end up paying for "false" religious worship practices. There is plenty of precedent ruling that we can't stop paying taxes in response to religious or political objections, but government should also be sensitive to the fact they have a "captive" audience and take seriously the requirement to "accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs", including the option not to pay for religious worship services that would more appropriately be covered by contributions from church members.

For example, the Jacksonville event could have been organized so that $95,000 was spent to set up a civic memorial service for the young victim along with a public call to stop violence, which could then have been officially adjourned, and followed by an interfaith prayer service paying the going rate for city services it might have consumed, let's say, $5,000-$7,000; whatever the going fee would be for any other organization holding a rally. I, for one, would have dropped a check in the collection box. That way, the city could have invested what it thought necessary to reduce the murder rate, without the whole price tag being spent on an event that may or may not have clearly deliniated its civic and religious goals as currently required by law.

If I could claim excessive taxation as a violation of my libertarian beliefs, you can bet I would sue politicians for wasting money on pork, and make them pay back every last dime out of their own pockets and their biggest campaign contributors. If only.

Ah. So many generalizations, so little time...

So what's up, aevans? I had no idea you knew all about how atheists think and what bothers them and that they burst into flames at the mere mention of the word "god" (okay, maybe I added that last part). I'll be sure to inform my fellow atheists at the next Atheist Meetup in my area that instead of focusing on making sure the first amendment is adhered to and making sure our rights as a religious minority are not usurped by the religious majority, we instead focus on more trivial matters, such as being ticked off that the rest of America isn't Atheist Like Us. That'll get us somewhere.

Really, have you ever really been face to face and had an in-depth conversation with an atheist? Cause you're spouting a whole lotta falsehoods here. If you want the truth and just not what Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly told you about the Big Bad Atheists, here it is in a nutshell: we do not give a care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. We are not bothered by personal expressions of faith - as long as it doesn't involve the government (or government-sanctioned entities) or unlawful discrimination. We don't care if Ms. Sally Co-worker wears a cross necklace, or that there's a Gideon Bible in every hotel room that we didn't ask for. Most of us have some fun with the things you think would bother us - during the "War on Christmas," whenever I'm wished a Merry Christmas, I simply say "I'm Jewish," giving the wisher a little food for thought that maybe everyone doesn't follow the same religion.

You mentioned that there are a lot of things you don't like your tax dollars to be spent on. Well, are any of those things against the Constitution? Cause if they are, then maybe you'd have a case too.

There are some atheists who get up in arms about the little things, and that's too bad for them because they have an entire life they're missing out on. But the majority simply want to try to make a majority religious nation a little more respectful of those who aren't.

I see we've got a long, long way to go.

I really don’t think how we interpret Jefferson is really all that important. There have been a number of court cases come down since 1960 on this issue. Included were Engle vs. Vitale, 1962

http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html

and Murray vs. Schempp, 1963.

http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/prayer.html

A few points.

1. The establishment clause in the Constitution of the United States forbids establishment of religion, not specifically an organized church.

2. The 1st Amendment was applied to state governments through the 14th Amendment in a process called incorporation.

3. I don’t see how we can have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. The two seem to go hand in hand.

4. Jefferson lived a long life and said many things, and like Benjamin Franklin and others, these sayings were at times contradictory.

5. The reinterpretation of Jefferson the religious right mold has been spearheaded by David Barton’s organization called WallBuilders.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/sear...hp?ResourceID=9

One of the hottest debated topics on this board was authored by Ol Sarge. It touched on some of the issues here. There was a lot of good research on both sides, you might enjoy reading through it.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=8806&hl=

As what I call "mild agnostic," I think all governments would do well to stay away from sponsoring religious events. Cities need to spend their funds on filling potholes, picking up trash on time, etc., not religious hocus-pocus.

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

I don't believe so. The two interpretations of the Establishment Clause are seen to keep the Federal and State government from establishing and maintaining (through taxes) a church and to prohibit those two entities from showing a preference of one religion over another, or religion itsself over secular/atheist beliefs.

I don't see the rally as endrosing any one religion over another, or endorsing religion itself as a superior belief over atheism. It was a rally against violence that appealed to the majority of the community, who happen to believe in a deity. And it's not like if I was an atheist and I showed up, declaring my belief, that I'd be turned away.

There was no preference shown to any religion or any promotion of any faith over another.


I won't argue that, especially in the South, atheists have undergone shameful treatment by people. What I will argue is that accomodating every little affront to a small number of people is quite destructive to the legal and civic fiber of this country. While it is important to ensure the rights of all citizens are protected, we must also guard against the abuses of that protection.

The truth is atheists are a minority in this country. And while that fact does not make way for them to be abused or discriminated against, that should not mean that the beliefs of the many should be held hostage under threat of political incorrectness and litigation to ensure that the minority isn't affronted.

I saw no offense that would warrant this decision.

No, Titus, a church does not have to be involved. Read the Engle vs. Vitale case in my previous post.

Here's the link again.

http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html


The board of regents for the City of New York Schools was prohibited from having students recite a prewritten nonsectarian prayer. The public schools are not a church, yet there have been cases limiting their religious practices.

I know, and as I pointed out, it also involves showing a prefrence of religion itself.

I'd like to be shown where the preferential treatment to religion over secularism was at the rally. I've seen none so far. I'd also like to see why none of the plaintiffs in this case have made the same case against the city for the mayor having an "Office of Faith and Community Based Partnerships".

If more time was taken, and the rally had gone through this channel, no one would have said a word against the rally.

I don't think that's the real issue. To me the question is whether or not the city should be sponsoring a faith rally with tax money. My answer is no. Does this not take funds from legitimate municipal prohects. Should the city pass (sorry about the typo) along the cost by raising, taxes trash collection and other fees? Was this project in the budget passed by the city fathers?

What is so hard for people to understand that the home and the churches can provide adequate religious activities for people without governments on any level helping?


Edited to add:



From Victoria’s original link:

Sounds more like a Jesus rally.

Further, I question the existence of the "Mayor's Office of Faith and Community Based Partnerships."

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

Well it does not make a law that pertains to religion, such as stamping in god we trust on our currency. It does however use a government institution to endorse if not establish religion. Other talking points aside the separation of church and state is focused around religion. Just as I am establishing my opinion the general word religion in the separation clause encapsulates just that and its many forms. Now of course those with religious ties will see this as a non important issue or of benefit to our country, and to establish such an opinion is fine I would say, if not constitutional. I would however go to point out that it was governmental forces at work with religious forces, and such is truly a Pandora’s box of sorts because I am sure that same governmental body would deny funds and resources to a great majority of the religious groups that exist. Though I would find it funny to have national Satan day or something, it’s a slippery slope in my eyes, one that could involve slipping basically back to the religious strife of old Europe and of course my great fear of a repressive subjective state of theological rule.

I know you are joking gordo, but a national Satan day wouldn't be any better.

My objective is to have the home and church handle religion and the government to provide service such as fire and police protection, street rapair and trash collection. With as many churches and other religious organizations as we have, there is no reason to have government sticking it's nose into religion.

Well, being a resident of Jacksonville and having a parent working closely to organize the event, I am almost positive that there is no violation when the government is protecting the right of individual citizens to organize. The red tap brought about by organizations in response without federal intervention would have been a public relations nightmare, so I believe the most appropriate course of action was to protect (not endorse) the rally.

Which were revised by the two cases I cited, Gentala v. City of Tucson (2003) and Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) to allow for equal access to public forums for religious expression and public prayer at government facilities and events, done right (as free exercise instead of establishment). Navigating among all these cases is complex, best done with expert legal advice; or even better, letting a religious group organize the event and simply giving them the same access to a public forum that is open to any other kind of group.

True, but the meaning of "establishment of religion" is under increasing flux. One can post the ten commandments on government property in some historical contexts but not a religious context; more details to navigate. The latest balance between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause was addressed in the first reply to this topic. The recent move to interfaith prayer after public events is rooted in the equal access basis for the Gentala and Milford cases, not a continuation of the scenario that was most immediate to Jefferson, when "establishment of religion" originally meant identifying a particular denomination's doctrines as the official religion of the state or State.

Quite correct, and case law had broadened the first amendment's meaning before and after the 14th. That's one of the reasons why referencing Jefferson's "separation between Church and State" is misleading, because his opinions of the first amendment were from a different era, in a different context.

Again, it all depends on what the speaker means by "freedom from religion". If "freedom from religion" means holding atheist or agnostic beliefs in your own mind and expressing them freely, then you are certainly entitled to freedom from religion. However, if "freedom from religion" means walking though a public place in December and not having to hear Christmas carols about Jesus, then no, you are not entitled to freedom from religion. My freedom from religion ends where your free exercise of religion begins. Same as my grandad used to say, my freedom to throw a punch ends where your nose begins.

Contradictory on occasion, and sometimes just nuanced or slightly modified. It was also a more eloquent age that requires a bit more study or interpretation than more recent wordcraft. Ideas were frequently stated for poetic impact. Is this turn of phrase imagery, hyperbole, firm resolve, verbal flourish, or intended ambiguity? The answers aren't always easy.

The reinterpretation of Jefferson (and all the founders and framers) is as much a favorite passtime of the secular left as the religious right. Well, and truth be told, the libertarian top. All claim to know the real Jefferson better than the others. I prefer reading his writings directly, with some helpful commentaries, and hope for the best. Paper libraries are wonderful things.

As what I call an unaffiliated seeker, I stop short of calling all religious or spiritual expression "hocus-pocus", but otherwise concur. If it's the government's job to save our souls, we're all doomed.

Limited government-- it's a nice idea, we ought to try it.

Word choice is vital here.

The phrase religious hocus-pocus makes me think particular things about how you view religion and people's choice to practice religion.

The secular world I imagine you envision may exist somewhere but it certainly doesn't here. The back-lash is already afoot. Gone are the Holiday Plays, Festive Season and Non-Denominational Trees - back in are Christmas Plays, Christmas Season and Christmas Trees. Expect more. Probably too much but that is how pendulums swing so to speak.

Now we've taken this topic off point - you have (upthread) even disregarded the opinion of many here that this particular case is much ado about nothing to insert your wishes that all religion be kept under the houses of worship and (charitably) individual homes. Your "beef" seems to be that money was spent on religious hocus-pocus and not pot hole filler. How do you feel about 4th of July Parades? I mean certainly there's a pot hole in Jacksonville Florida not benefitting from a rock and asphalt mix while that chicanery abounds! And parks... swings? teeter totters? none of these will get my trash collected! Nay they may hinder the men appointed to those rounds as they may frolick.

I think you see where I'm going.

If this were called Day Against Violence would you feel better?

I chose hocus-pocus intentionally.

If you had lived in the "Bible Belt" all your life, you might know why I chose this particular word.



Christmas carols are mostly played in private malls and on private radio stations. I can't recall the City of Fort Worth playing Christmas carols in a park or any other public place, although this may have happened and I'm not sure what other cities practice. I have no objection, but the Christmas music seem to start earlier every year and go on a few days beyond Christmas Day. It gets old fast and the getting old doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. The Chipmunks are as inane now as in the 50s.

A Jesus rally? The pastor led a prayer, not the entire rally, BoF. If it was a Christian-only rally and it was paid by the city, I'd say there was a strong case, but it was a multi-faith rally for a secular cause. And while I agree that tax money should not be used for any one particular faith, not all churches have bank accounts that are flowing with cash. Sure, Jesus fed the multitude with three fish and a loaf of bread, but the local pastor can't withdrawl $100,000 on Monday morning after depositing $1,000.

And if he can, I need to start going to church, his church, lol....

And let us not forget that this was an anti-violence rally first and foremost. If unting people of all faiths through prayer to show solidairty in the face of violence isn't a worthwhile community project, I don't know what is.

Ok, I have no problem with an anti-violence rally, but why was a prayer even necessary. Could the people not have prayed at home and in their churches and then attended the rally? Even then, there would be nothing questionable about individuals praying silently or in groups attending the rally. This would eliminate prayer from the official ceremonies, but not from people at the rally.

It's strange nobody can answer my question about why a governmental body would need to be involved in these things if families and churches were doing their jobs.

What if the Free Will of the community was behind this heinous act of Prayer?

This just doesn't seem like much of a push by a Government to Establish a Religion.

1.Worldly rather than spiritual.
2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3.Relating to or advocating secularism.
4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6.Lasting from century to century.

Such are the various defenitions of secular as from the american heritage version found at dictionary.com.

I think many times its easy to get it confused with say secular humanism.

"Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance or a praxis focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives (eupraxsophy). The term was coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". A related concept is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature"."

Link to paragraph on secular humanism

Now I don’t know of any secular attempt to ban religion in the U.S, most the time it seems to be some play on the fact that our diversity leads us into conflict over issues in the public, and at a governmental level various groups are insecure over specific ideologies attempting to gain influence of basically the system of law that organizes our nation. Religious groups for the most part seem to get angry and feel persecuted when others attempt to hold up the separation of church and state and claim they are being unwarrantedly attacked or persecuted, though off topic I always find it funny that the word persecution and religion occur together so often in our history.

I don’t care to have public or government institutions reflect religion anymore then various religious types could not care for me or others to motivate government to reflect secular humanism. So what I find is the middle ground of simply being secular at a governmental level, and of course just like in Iran religions conservatives must find a way to demonize even this and attempt to destroy it and purge themselves of the evil secularists. I don’t find how a civil society will ever be able to obtained when issues like this can bring the competition level to such heights.

It was overall a very religious event that was combined with government. I don’t know how else you are to look at this save for government establishing and endorsing religion. Now if it was just some faith based event, like people going to church, I have no issues with it on a personal level, but the reality is it simply was not that, it was a combined arms exercise in every meaning of those words.

Would it matter if the members of the community expressed that will as individuals instead of standing there while someone voiced the prayer over a PA device?



I'm not sure quantity is the question here.



The question might better be would I "think" it better, not "feel." Sure, it would be better if the religious element were left to individuals.

Similar questions have been debated on this board so often in the past, that they lose their appeal quickly. I think I'm heading for the shower.

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

It seems this was a clear violation of the intent behind the first amendment. In 1947 Federal Justice Hugo Black, one of the most most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century, reviewing history made a clear opinion on the first amendment.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/re...premecourt.html



Clearly the government by holding this event was supporting any or all religions. Whether it funded any specific religion is not the issue. As history teaches us, religious liberty is best maintained by the government simply staying clear of religion, not funding religious events.

(Bold added for emphasis.)

It's difficult for me to see how a government-sponsored event called "Arming our Prayer Warriors" can be interpreted as anything but a direct promotion of religion. As far as I can tell, nothing went on at this event that was not 100% a promotion of Abrahamic monotheism.

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

There's been a lot of debate back on forth on this thread. I thought I'd introduce some food for thought.

1. Religion is specifically called out in both the Constitution and the First Amendment. Thus, it has a special status unlike "marches against violence" or whatnot. In fact, the pro-gun folks are very keen to point out that the 2nd Amendment makes special reference to gun ownership.

2. Of course, if religion were no longer tax-exempt, I'm not sure bringing a case against government funds would be as strong. Perhaps, someone (Seamus) has thoughts on this?

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

That's pretty close, but "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is also in the First Amendment, so a "march against violence" could also make a claim of special status, and peace demonstators often do.

If Jacksonville had stifled the right to assembly as well as their right to free exercise, Jacksonville would certainly have violated the First Amendment as currently interpreted by SCOTUS. However, by funding an event primarily focused on religious worship, Jacksonville may have also violated the intent of the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS. There was certainly a way Jacksonville could have allowed the rally to happen without funding it that would have been not only constitutional, but constitutionally guaranteed. However, the way they decided to fund it, promote it, and conduct it raises questions under current law.

Our current perspective on establishment was definitely not shared by the framers. John Adams, who described himself as "a churchgoing animal" is said to have given a speech against establishment on the steps of Congress, then proceeded inside the building to attend a church service held on government property; Jefferson and Madison did the same. Our current view has been shaped by many decades of court decisions that have reinforced the idea that even the slightest hint of religion near government violates the constitution; but that interpretation has been tempered in recent rulings that the free exercise, free assembly, and equal access principles are not automatically trumped by a whiff of establishment, as was the vogue in the middle of last century.

I don't think tax exempt status would have much of a bearing on the Jacksonville case, but it is another front in the larger church-state debate. To apply it to Jacksonville, a case might be made that because churches don't pay taxes, they don't deserve equal access to city resources. But then, churches aren't the only tax-exempt groups, so winning such a line of reasoning would also make it more difficult for Lions clubs to hold bake sales on city property. The right to assemble is not predicated on tax status, but being human and peaceful. Equal access to city services is usually based on the rights or privileges of individuals who may happen to be acting as a group; how the group itself is organized under tax code is rarely the issue. If the individuals pay taxes, it probably wouldn't matter that the group does not.

In some cases, the government currently uses tax-exempt status as leverage to tell churches what they can and cannot express from the pulpit, but I don't think it's an issue in the Jacksonville case. There is a move among both liberal churches and conservative churches to reorganize into taxpaying corporations to avoid IRS regulations that try to prevent politically active preachers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Pat Robertson from preaching politics to their congregations or use churches as loopholes in election laws. The "Render Unto Caesar" movement, among others, believes it is better for churches to pay taxes than accept government regulation of religious speech, which is currently predicated on the carrot of tax-exempt status and the stick of election laws. Over the next few years, the Supreme Court is expected to hear several cases concerning whether tax exemption or election laws can continue to trump the free exercise clause. These will probably not be decided before the 2008 election season is over, but their existence has emboldened some churches to ignore the current censorship of political messages from the pulpit in anticipation of a favorable ruling. They assert that the free exercise clause trumps whatever censorship the IRS or FEC might try to prommelgate; we'll soon see whether SCOTUS agrees.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of rulings in line with the idea that government should not be in the business of funding religion. There are also currently several exceptions to the general rule, but most are predicated on the idea that if the government would be paying for something anyway, religion can't be used as an excuse not to pay for it. In the Gentala case, the city of Tuscon decided to charge a religious group an extra fee for using a city PA system that they didn't charge other groups. SCOTUS vacated the circuit court's decision, on the basis that the first amendment's establishment clause does not override equal access to city resources for religious groups (the Milford case) or free exercise of religion.

Although the Milford case dealt specifically with holding religious events on school grounds after school, it has been interpreted in several other cases to allow holding any religious event on public property following any government event, so long as the government's business has been adjourned and no privilege is given to religious groups that isn't available to any other group. Although not entirely definitive, SCOTUS has let cases stand that successfully extrapolated Milford to a variety of other situations. The most definitive of these might have been the Gentala case, which was essentially SCOTUS forcing a lower court to apply Milford. For now, it would seem the SCOTUS-condoned generalization of Milford would allow a city to hold a civic memorial service, adjourn it, and then provide a forum for leaders of community groups to engage in free expression. The main problem in the Jacksonville settlement, aside from the manner in which it was promoted, is the lack of evidence that the civic and religious elements were clearly divided, which could raise some questions about the event's constitutionality under current law. But current law is a moving target.

The most definitive Supreme Court case on government funding of religious activities is the Hein case currently before SCOTUS. It concerns the constitutionality of Bush's faith-based initiatives. By this summer, we should know whether or not the government can discriminate against contractors on the basis of religion. SCOTUS may continue in the directions of Gentala and Milford to validate faith-based initiatives, or it may take the opportunity to define a limit on the extent to which tax dollars are diverted to religious groups; it could also throw out the case without a definitive ruling, as it did the Newdow Pledge case last year, on the basis that being a taxpayer is not a sufficient injury for filing a church-state separation case. I expect SCOTUS to rule in favor of the initiatives, but I've been surprised too often to wager.

It is relatively easy to cherry-pick past court cases that support almost anything from slavery to censorship of religious expression, but law aggregates them into a virtual hierarchy where the more recent SCOTUS decisions tend to trump older SCOTUS decisions (with many exceptions, of course). There are enough SCOTUS and lower court decisions on church-state issues to be difficult to accurately navigate without specialized legal advice (and mine certainly won't qualify). However, the Milford case and its extrapolation through Gentala has introduced a relatively easy way to be confident of the constitutionality of public expressions of religion on government property after government business is concluded so long as equal access is preserved.

Some religious groups would rather blend religious and government meetings together, while some church-state separation hardliners would probably prefer religious people to hold their rallies in their own private buildings and stay off government property. The Milford solution seems to offend both ends of the political spectrum, so that's probably a good indication that it's a decent compromise.

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

This one is in the gray area, towards the teeter totter fulcrum. I say this because the mayor interprets faith as also having faith in community, which is having faith in human beings, which is secular humanism, or the belief that we can solve our own problems without divine intervention. And in fact we often do.

It may have been an act of God to send Katrina slamming into the Gulf states, but it has been acts of human compassion that have helped people in the aftermath. That's just one of the many examples that come to mind.

I personally don't have a problem with a rally for non-violence, and the inclusion of preachers seems a logical thing. I just don't want a penny of my tax dollars going to support it, as that money is meant for a secular government to do secular things like plow the snow off the main roads.

As for the power of prayer, I guess now our troops will be coming home from Iraq, or heading to Afghanistan or Iran. A praying President doesn't seem to have helped much on the non-violence issue, but who knows, maybe things would have been worse with Gore. Then again, maybe not. Oftentimes it's very hard to determine karma, or cause and effect. Did I get this job as an answer to a prayer, or because we got rid of an unlucky bed, or because the wheels of corporate America finally turned my way? Maybe all three were causal situations, or maybe nothing with any consciousness at all had to do with it, meaning not conscious of my little bitty problem.

Well, that's not the point. The point is how tax dollars get spent, and this wasn't a wise choice. Could have hired two or three cops with that money. Could have repaved some roads, maybe got a few more teachers or started building a school. As it is some folks got to feel good, some simply contributed to global warming with hot air, and lawyers took in the rest.

This was not only unconstitutional, it was a foolish waste of taxpayer funds. But look! The homicide rate went down!

Uh-huh. Oftentimes cause and effect are hard to determine, and this is one of those times. It could have been that Jacksonville experience more periods of atmospheric high pressure, thus putting people into better moods. Maybe the mild hurricane season had something to do with it, which is of course tied directly into atmospheric pressure.

I don't think the city of Jacksonville will be replacing its police department with a faith department anytime soon, nor do I think another faith-based city-funded rally is in the works.

I don't think that because atheists weren't explicitly handed invitations to this rally that you can call this a "Descendants of Abraham" rally. The rally was not promoting the religions themselves, but were using the faiths of the community as a catalyst to unite.

Now, the fine folks at the Mayor's office could do some heavy research into finding out exactly how many Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Hindus, Sikhs, and other religious minorites there are in Jacksonville so that no one would be publicly left out and thereby offended. Or, they could go...well, I think everyone will get the idea even if we don't nit pick, which is what I think they did.

Promotion of religion usually hints at superiority. I don't think this was an "Athiests are going to hell rally".

Titus- c'mon man, you can see that this is a religious rally- non-demoninational, but a religious rally- and the goverment funded it- tht is bad. The City paid to sponsor a belief network if you will, non-specific, but, in the end, promoting the belief that there is a "god"- by giving tax money for these things to be held, you are supporting a religion, if not a specific church building.

Afirmative action, hot lunches, school, those kinds of things are secular- so, whether I believe them to be good for the country or not, the elected officials can spend money on those items- I may not agree, I may even campaign to have that person removed- but none of the things Aevens mentioned is supporting a concept of religion, be it specific or otherwise.

5k was a very, very cheap lesson for that city- I hoped they learned from it.

You can make a pretty strong case that Faith & Prayer are secular and can be devoid of religion. It wouldn't be an honest case but it could be made. Faith certainly need not be religious and neither does praying. I mean who am I praying to, precisely, when I am praying for a career ending injury to a New York Islander and that his wife be barren?

Ultimately I concede that this played out precisely as it should have but I think we all need to careful what we wish for and how we interpret the First Amendment.

I TOTALLy agree BA- you must tread very softly in 1rst amendment stuff, it can go the other way very easily. However, Athiests are not a power in this nation- the religious right is, and they want, very badly, to make the US a theocracy, Christianity the "state" religion. Thomas Jefferson was FAR FAR FAR more worried about the church than the monarchy- for good reasons!

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was to allow churches tax exempt status- I think they should be taxed at around 90% of gross revenues- to make sure they are always poor and hungry- otherwise, thier flocks of sheep allow them to get powerful, very quickly.

I don't agree that "faith" and "prayer" can be secular at all, except in a very, very loose sort of metaphor. I mean, when the government has a "faith-based initiative," they are not using the word "faith" to mean anything but religious faith. When the city of Jacksonville was holding a rally for "Prayer Warriors," the word "warriors" might have been a metaphor, but the word "prayer" was quite literal; it clearly meant communication from human beings to a deity.

You can say things like "I have faith in the Boston Red Sox" but that is a very loose metaphor; it just means "I think the Boston Red Sox will win." The example you give about the New York Islander is using the word "praying" as a very loose metaphor; what you really mean is "hoping." (Unless you are actually sending wishes to a deity.)

I certainly agree that we need to be careful about the First Amendment, to make sure that private individuals have as much religious freedom as possible, but that government offer no official opinions for or against religious topics at all.

While some in the RR may want to establish theocracy, they would do so over the objections of 100% of their biblical theologians. Christian theology 101 is that Christ died to free humanity from the need for political theocracy, in favor of a purely spiritual kingdom independent of any political entity. St. Paul went so far as to say that if Christians try to establish a new political theocracy, then "Christ died for nothing" and their faith has been in vain.

Throughout history, theocracy in the name of Jesus only thrived while people were illiterate or otherwise prevented from reading the bible for themselves. Gutenberg's press was the beginning of the end of the great oxymoron "Christian Theocracy", with the American revolution sparking the final chain reaction of disestablishment in the old world.

Jefferson helped wage a shooting war against monarchy while attending church services regularly and composing a synopsis of the gospels. While Jefferson was no theocrat, he was also no Christophobe.

The only thing the founding fathers enacted that even remotely resembled modern welfare was to let churches continue donating most of their money to the poor. Until the Great Depression, churches provided virtually all of the nation's social support services for orphans, widows, the unemployed, the working poor, the immigrants, and the otherwise downtrodden-- of all faiths or lack thereof.

Taxing churches quite literally takes food out of the mouths of starving people and health care away from the sick poor. The founding fathers were wise enough not to do that. Although there are now a handful of televangelists who squander collections on luxuries, taxing most churches 90% would effectively be a tax on the poorest 1% of the country. I don't think you'll find many political parties with such a plank in their platform.

I oppose so-called "Christian theocracy", too; but I neither hate nor fear Christian politicians because I know their primary constituency is a group of people who would vote them out of office if they were to attempt theocratic rule. What they want from their government is enlightened neutrality on religious issues. They want a government that nether imposes nor opposes religious beliefs by force of law, but generates a political environment amenable to any peaceful form of religious philosophy, including tolerant atheism and agnosticism. If the state would go about its business without openly antagonizing the church, most of the church would have no need to take sides in politics based on religious issues.

As a follow-up, the Hein case was thrown out Monday, June 25, as I theorized "on the basis that being a taxpayer is not a sufficient injury for filing a church-state separation case." As mentioned in the quote above, this leaves the faith-based initiatives question unresolved, but makes the initiatives somewhat more difficult to challenge. The group will now probably have to ally with a contractor whom they believe clearly deserved a contract that was awarded to a religious group. I'm sure such cases are already headed toward SCOTUS, but I haven't found them yet.

Back to Jacksonville:

Was this rally a violation of the First Amendment?

In light of the opinions delivered Monday, it's looking like the tension between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, long heavily weighted in favor of the establishment clause, is continuing to trend toward a more even balance. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jacksonville probably was not as careful as it should have been in navigating the law-- the city could have hosted a very similar event without trouble if it had only jumped through a few procedural hoops.

Bill Clinton's National Day of Prayer pronouncements:



Atheists can bow their heads and thank the great nothing. This ain't unconstitutional.

I was not aware that the actions of Bill Clinton were the ne plus ultra of Constitutional behavior.



This is the kind of thing I hear quite often from people who apparently cannot face the fact that persons without faith really exist. We are told to "pray to ourselves" or "pray to nothing." In the silliest example I ever heard, we were told that we should "pray to Marx." (I wonder what the outspoken atheist Ayn Rand would have said about that!)

The point is that we cannot pray. The very concept is meaningless to us.

The fact that Presidents always proclaim Days of Prayer is just one example of the countless tiny ways in which atheists are marginalized by the American government. Whether it be "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God," each of these seemingly trivial official government endorsements of monotheism is a reminder that I must always be an outsider within my own country. Well, I can live with these small insults. However, when the government pays a large sum of money for an event which, from all the information I can find, has no purpose except the promotion of religious faith, I have to object, and point at the First Amendment. The court seems to agree with me.