OBJECTIONS TO RELIGIOUS INVOCATIONS. Bob Cosgrove read a “resolution to ban religious invocations at college events,” passed by the Saddleback College Academic Senate (October 11). It has received the endorsement of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate, the Faculty Association (i.e., the faculty union), and, I believe, the Associated Students of Saddleback College.
The nub of the problem with prayer, says the resolution, is that individuals have a right “to determine whether, how, when, and whom to worship” and that that right is “violated by the inclusion of a religious invocation in college events.”
As you know, legally, prayers before meetings are not permitted in the K-12 public schools, owing, I believe, to minors' impressionability. Public colleges, however, are a different matter.The resolution “does not oppose the inclusion of a moment of silence….”
The resolution has been forwarded to the state Academic Senate. I’ve been told that the state senate is disposed to address this matter. If it takes action (probably in the form of yet another resolution), it will likely side with the Saddleback College Academic Senate resolution, more or less.
As I explained Monday night, John Williams suggested that the “invocation” question be put to the voters. Evidently, an “advisory vote” can be placed on the ballot. Williams explained that, in all but 1 of the last 14 years, invocations have been given at the start of meetings. Williams is an ardent non sequiturian. And so, having said that, he asked, “do we reflect the voters?”
The “advisory vote” idea seemed to fall stillborn from Williams' lips.
STADIUMS FOR THE COLLEGES? For some reason, Monday night, some trustees felt it necessary to advocate building new stadiums for the two colleges. While “we have basic aid” dollars, said Bill Jay, we “should pursue this.” John Williams agreed about the stadiums. So did Nancy Padberg. But why did they bring this up last night?
As I recall, in the past, Trustees Tom Fuentes and Don Wagner have expressed skepticism about building new stadiums. Maybe it was just Tom. Could be.
40 comments:
Isn't restricting prayer akin to restricting free speech?
No, it's about not forcing a religious ceremony on people at a government function. Go pray on your own time.
The right of free speech is not a right to be provided a venue for one's speech. Further, one must distinguish between captive and non-captive audiences. Etc. Obviously.
10:03 -- try not to be such a knucklehead.
While the right to free speech does not guarantee a venue, where the venue already exists, it cannot be closed by government on a whim. Even Chunk should know that based on prior battles he’s fought.
Nor does the captive/non-captive audience distinction apply. According to the Supreme Court, school children are “captives” in the classroom and can’t be subjected to prayer. But college events such as board meetings, graduations, etc., are not the same. No one is forced to attend or, even if in attendance, to participate in the prayer.
10:03 is not the knucklehead in this exchange. Obviously.
This is downright disingenuous:
"No one is forced to attend or, even if in attendance, to participate in the prayer."
What crap. This is a basic board meeting, where college issues are to be discussed. There's no need for a prayer in the first place; also, the idea that some religious character feels that it is somehow appropriate for those in attendance who don't want to be put through the irritation of a self appointed to have to leave is just crap.
This is all a nonissue founded on the need to rile up the rubes. Drop the prayer routines and stick with the business at hand.
Wait for the O'Reily crowd to start using the "war on christians" routine to help them sell books and raise funds.
In my opnion, the board needs all the help they can get...
So, help from a mythical being will make some sort of difference?
Wrangle over prayer all you want while the plans to build a stadium are discussed and will, no doubt, be supported by our board. Meanwhile we lack classrooms, have aging buildings with mouse droppings in faculty offices, filthy bathrooms and have no clue as to where the money will come from to maintain the Performing Arts building. We want to generate FTEs but can't seem to build the facilities that will generate FTEs. There is always plenty of money for pet projects of the Board but there is little if any money available to support innovative teaching and the infrastructure necessary to support that enterprise.
Thank God (no pun intended) that we are finally discussing this issue. I'm so glad that the faculty has awakened and is doing something about this! Prayer in any public setting is inappropriate. We are a publicly funded institution; therefore, the separation of church and state applies. Prayers have no place in board meetings, commencement, or college fundraisers. Sometimes this district is so backwards. Who besides us does this stuff anymore? It's embarrasing.
a response to both academic senates and student government dopes - take your resolution and stick it up your arse!
Then do yourself and all of us a favor, 4:56. Leave! Get a job at a place that doesn't embarrass you. Guaranteed, you will not be missed!
Why is it that so many are against praying to God almighty, and when those same people against prayer are the same ones that cry out to God when in a real bad situation????
What’s so “downright disingenuous” about my prior post, 1:56? No one needs to attend meetings or commencement. Sure it may be, as you say, “a basic board meeting, where college issues are to be discussed.” But so what? Attendance is not compulsory as it is, for example, in an elementary school classroom. Moreover, the audience is not impressionable children but rather adults.
And you’re also right that “[t]here's no need for a prayer in the first place.” Again, though, so what? There’s no need for a lot of what goes on at board meetings or commencement ceremonies. For example, there are supposedly inspirational speeches read, or board reports given, or proclamations issued. There’s no actual need for any of that. But “need” is not the question. The courts have allowed non-denominational prayers under these circumstances. You may not like it, but you’re in the minority. Because the majority is not violating your rights, you just have to put up with it as the price of living in a pluralistic society. If you have a problem with this then don’t attend college events, or don’t stand when the invocation begins, or stick your fingers in your ears and hum like a madman. No one will care.
Finally, your comment that “[t]his is all a nonissue founded on the need to rile up the rubes” is just bizarre. Weren’t you paying attention? According to Chunk’s report, this issue was raised by your side – the Saddleback Academic Senate. Are you saying that the senate was trying to “rile up the rube” faculty with this non-issue? Surely not. Maybe if one of your trustees had raised it, your comment would have some cogency. But as it stands, your classless and non-sequitur laden post was just silly.
All we see, 1:30, from your commentary is that there is some sort of "majority" that wants to appeal to a supreme being and that somehow that will make the board work better. What tripe.
And, you know how this will be played out--a rational suggestion is made, and the worshippers of myths will take it and run with it, and will be on Fox asking for donations.
Ok, though, let's go with your "pluralistic society"--let's have an atheist talk after the prayer guy, asking for those in the audience to put aside their childish beliefs and to make decisions based on scientific inquiry. We can hear you shrieking already.
Secular progressives = dumb shits!
ah Patrick, you are so damn refreshing. And possessed of such stellar rhetorical skills!
Deus vult!
God wills it?
I do not understand how prayer is allowed. Even a moment of silence. They have it here, too, and this is a public institution. Do they have it in the UC system? I went there for all degrees but did not go to any ceremonies.
"But college events such as board meetings, graduations, etc., are not the same. No one is forced to attend or, even if in attendance, to participate in the prayer."
At my university, participation in the graduation ceremony is a requirement for a degree. Putting prayers in there makes it a religious event whether individuals pray or not.
Ditto board meetings: if it's your job to be there, you've got to be there.
And it is a school, not a church. The freedom of religion of which the U.S. is so proud means, no state religion. It does not mean, religion must permeate public life and the state.
Professor Zero:
The “freedom of religion of which the U.S. is so proud” was never understood by the founders, or any subsequent generation, to mean freedom from religion. Despite the best efforts of the ACLU crowd and the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court has never ruled that all expressions of religion must be purged from public life.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress, and through the Fourteenth Amendment state and local government, from passing any law establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of a religion. An invocation before a board or city council meeting, or a commencement ceremony, hardly does any of these things. You can’t seriously believe that, because of an invocation, religion will “permeate public life and the state.” If so, you really need to get out of that ivory tower a bit more.
Actually, 9:34, being at an official government function, and having a prayer, does permeate the process quite significantly. And read about the founders, who were not the religious zealots you believe them to be. Most of them were actually afraid of the proselytizers.
You still have not said, with any credibility, why we need an appeal to a mythical religious figure at the start of a board meeting. Please try.
People really need to realize that this board needs all the help they can get; so why not appeal to a mythical figure for guidance?
But why stop at the Judeo-Christian canon?
Let's pray to Jove! Saturn! Thor! Juno!
Good point--the Greek Gods are much more fun, and less hypocritical than the Judeo-Christian version.
Actually, 10:15, a prayer at an official government function does not “permeate” the process, significantly or otherwise. It is, at best, a minor inconvenience that is the price you pay for living in a free society. Get over it. And no, you do not have to pray, even when attending an event with others praying around you. Horrors! Is your self-respect so shaken by watching manifestations of others’ faith (however simple minded you might think those others to be) that you cannot stand it, believe it “permeates” everything that comes later, and must be censored?
Also, I have read extensively, and published, though less extensively, about the founders. True, they were not religious zealots. But they quite certainly did believe in God (and most were Christian; notice that they expressly acknowledged the Christian Lord in the Constitution), they frequently invoked God in their public pronouncements, they began legislative sessions with prayer, and they permitted religious services in public buildings. Jefferson, the author of the flawed “wall of separation” metaphor, attended religious services in the US Capital, of all places.
Finally, why should your board be permitted to “appeal to a mythical religious figure”? There are two obvious answers. First, because the constitution gives them the right to do so and, though you may not like it, you do not have the right to stop them. That alone is enough of an answer. Please try to explain why your anti-religious sensitivities get to trump the majority which is doing you no harm with a brief invocation?
Second, the board and most other local government entities (see the Orange County Register article last Tuesday) seem to disagree with your premise that they are appealing to a “mythical” religious figure. They may be wrong, though I think not. But isn’t it better for all concerned that they believe their actions to be somewhat constrained? Again, you’re in the minority. But try to convince people through the power of your arguments instead of by obnoxiously trying to censor and silence those who disagree with you.
Where is the christian lord reference in the constition?
I think 2:37 means the "done in the year of our Lord" language at the end. It is not a substantive reference, but it really is in there. Makes it kinda hard to argue the writers meant for strict separation or were all diests or something.
4:11, are you serious with that comment?
"Actually, 10:15, a prayer at an official government function does not “permeate” the process, significantly or otherwise. It is, at best, a minor inconvenience that is the price you pay for living in a free society. Get over it."
From your point of view, it's minor. For the rest of us, it's inappropriate indocrination and smugness.
"Is your self-respect so shaken by watching manifestations of others’ faith (however simple minded you might think those others to be) that you cannot stand it, believe it “permeates” everything that comes later, and must be censored?"
We have enough self respect to not appeal to a deity for some sort of divine guidance; apaprently god has nothing to do but watch a group of people discuss scheduling conflicts, et.al.
"Jefferson, the author of the flawed “wall of separation” metaphor, attended religious services in the US Capital, of all places."
Maybe, but he had a major distrust of the zealots, and with good reason.
"Finally, why should your board be permitted to “appeal to a mythical religious figure”? There are two obvious answers. First, because the constitution gives them the right to do so and, though you may not like it, you do not have the right to stop them."
You are wrong on both counts.
"Please try to explain why your anti-religious sensitivities get to trump the majority which is doing you no harm with a brief invocation?"
First, if there is a "majority" (an assumption you make, by the way, but I'll let you have it) that does not make any action correct or logical.
You keep missing the point--there is no need for an invocation of any type. Invoking what, may we ask? And then let's be fair and have other types of "invocations." Where will it end?
"But isn’t it better for all concerned that they believe their actions to be somewhat constrained?"
Do they? Fuentes, for example, is a real nut job about this stuff.
" Again, you’re in the minority."
Again, so what? (If you are correct.)
"But try to convince people through the power of your arguments instead of by obnoxiously trying to censor and silence those who disagree with you."
Look to history and you'll see that no entity censors better than a religious one.
professor zero, you're a fuckin zero!
John 3:16
Wow, 6:10, virtually nothing you said is the least bit useful to your side of the argument. What a stunning mess of poor, circular, and historically uninformed reasoning. Let’s just take your arguments one by one:
1. “From your point of view, it's minor. For the rest of us, it's inappropriate indocrination [sic] and smugness.”
Yes, but you grant that my point of view – feebleminded and medieval though it may be – represents the majority view. And you live in a culture where the majority generally prevails. Therefore, inappropriate, smug, or not, as I said before, get over it. You just have to put up with us knuckle dragging troglodytes because our public prayers never hurt you.
2. “We have enough self respect to not appeal to a deity for some sort of divine guidance; apaprently [sic] god has nothing to do but watch a group of people discuss scheduling conflicts, et.al.”
Your point is circular. Only in the absence of “some sort of” deity would this have the slightest weight. Because we do not agree on the underlying premise, certainly you can see that this tautology is not in the least bit persuasive. This can hardly be characterized as a matter of “self respect” to those who do not share your secular point of view.
3. “[Jefferson] had a major distrust of the zealots.”
Regardless of whether this is historically accurate, the zealots today are clearly those on your side looking to overturn generations of historical precedent. Your view may indeed, but I doubt, be the “enlightened” view you assume it to be without proof. In all honesty, though, you have to admit that your view is certainly not the view that has prevailed over time. You look to junk the considered views of literally every prior generation because . . . well? . . . because you’re smarter and you just know best. Talk about smug! And you call us the zealots?
4. “You are wrong on both counts” as to why the board should be allowed to start meetings with an invocation.
Well, no. Your ipse dixit hardly makes a compelling argument.
5. “[I]f there is a "majority" (an assumption you make, by the way, but I'll let you have it) that does not make any action correct or logical.”
This is a straw man. I have not argued that majority status makes a point correct or logical. Instead, the fact of majority status means only that you cannot shut something down just because you don’t like it. (See the "get over it" comments above.) By way of example, I don’t think much of your arguments here. They’re ill-reasoned, poorly stated, and neither “correct [n]or logical.” But that pesky first amendment means you can’t be silenced despite these flaws. Well, it also means that you get nowhere opposing invocations on the grounds that they are not “correct or logical” in your opinion.
6. “You keep missing the point--there is no need for an invocation of any type. Invoking what, may we ask? And then let's be fair and have other types of "invocations." Where will it end?”
The point has not been missed, by me at least. Re-read my 1:30 post on March 2 where I answered this point days before you weighed in. “There’s no need for a lot of what goes on at board meetings or commencement ceremonies. For example, there are supposedly inspirational speeches read, or board reports given, or proclamations issued. There’s no actual need for any of that. But “need” is not the question.” In other words, so what that there is, in your view, no need for an invocation? Your board gets to have one, irrespective of need. (In passing, I note another circularity: You assume the very lack of need upon which your argument depends. I dare say your trustees and the majority of religious minded people would not agree that there is “no need,” rendering this argument just as bad as all the rest you’ve offered.)
You want an invocation of another “type,” whatever that might be? Get elected to the board and convince the others to go along with you. That’s how it’s done.
7. “Do they [feel constrained]? Fuentes, for example, is a real nut job about this stuff.”
Huh? What stuff? Stick to the issue. Do you presume to allege that Fuentes intentionally acts contrary to the constraints he believes God imposes? That’s quite a charge.
8. “Look to history and you'll see that no entity censors better than a religious one.”
We’ve just lived through a barbaric century of incredible censorship and re-writing of history by murderous, atheist regimes . . . and you think religion is the worst censor? That is stunningly ignorant. You might hate religion, but a little perspective, please.
all praise QUETZALCOATL.
do it. right now.
Loki is the man.
OK, 8:54, you claim that the majority gets to have its way because, well, its the majority. Now listen, so you can appear smart. Think of a circumstance when the majority is wrong--like the denizens of a Southern town not wanting to have blacks sitting at a lunch counter, or not sitting in the front of a bus. See, just being in the majority means little to the quality of an argument.
You then, later say you did not say being in the majority makes something correct--rather disingenuous of you, eh?
We still do not know what your prayer accomplishes--except that it gives you a warm feeling, perhaps. How about this--every meeting we rotate prayer givers--Buddhist one week, Muslims the next, and a Satanist for good measure.
Atheist regimes? There are almost none in history--most oppressive regimes are based on religion. How about the present day--a certain president opposed to the teaching of evolution, and the continued attack on homosexual rights--all religiously based. You win big time on this one.
We all know religious legislation has been shoved down our throats time after time--now there's resistance, you just hate it. Go ahead and get over it.
You're obviously chafing to get in the last word--so go ahead.
12:20, I hope you’re staff and not faculty. If you do teach, at least tell me it’s something soft and fuzzy like philosophy and not a subject that requires logic and linear thinking.
Let’s try this again with smaller words.
I can’t prove God exists and you can’t prove He does not. So what do we do about this impasse? In America, we let the majority decide. Now that doesn’t mean the majority is “correct or logical.” But someone has to decide and, here, it’s the majority.
Things change, however, and we take the decision away from the majority, when that majority might decide it wants to do something the constitution prohibits. The constitution does not prohibit invocations. The constitution does prohibit racial discrimination. Thus, we can make distinctions because these situations are different. Seems to me that the quality of my argument stands and that you’re trying to change the subject from prayer, where you lose, to Jim Crow, where you win. (Not incidently, that victory was won decades ago through the great work of many religious leaders. Ouch, that's got to sting!) But, since you don't get to change the subject and we’re not arguing Jim Crow, you’re still the loser.
What does prayer accomplish? That’s a fancy way of saying what’s the need and we’re right back to that impasse mentioned above. Stay with me here: the majority gets to decide whether invocations accomplish anything. The first amendment does not let you shut it down because you don't like it any more than I can shut down your postings on this blog.
Rotating invocations is a fine idea – except that your crowd has already brought suit against local government agencies to stop that. (You probably didn’t mean it anyway. You just wanted to see Trustee Fuentes’s head spin when the wiccan takes the floor.)
And yes, there have been very few atheist regimes in history. But boy have they been deadly. They killed lots more people in the 20th century alone than all the religious wars in history.
Finally there’s all that stuff about Bush and evolution and gay rights . . . . More subject changing. We’re talking about public prayer, not any of that other stuff. Focus.
I wasn't going to bother any more, but I just can't resist.
Let's see, a few selected points:
"I can’t prove God exists and you can’t prove He does not. So what do we do about this impasse?"
There is no impasse; you have the burden of proof. We do not have to prove a negative--you made a proposal (god exists) so now back it up. You don't get to dance away and tell us we can't disprove your
"In America, we let the majority decide. Now that doesn’t mean the majority is “correct or logical.” But someone has to decide and, here, it’s the majority."
Sure, ok, yes, but--and here is where you seem to have a little problem in remedial thought--that does not make it right. So, you should stop trotting out your "majority rules" thoughts with the subtext that therefore you win on that ground. Time to drop it.
"The constitution does not prohibit invocations."
Many legal scholars would disagree with you. Have any case law to back this up?
" . . .you’re trying to change the subject from prayer, where you lose, to Jim Crow, where you win."
No, it was used in the "majority" context, so don't misstate the argument terms.
"(Not incidently, that victory was won decades ago through the great work of many religious leaders. Ouch, that's got to sting!)"
What victory, exactly? A Supreme Court case? Brown?
So we're talking about lawyers, then, aren't we?
"What does prayer accomplish? That’s a fancy way of saying what’s the need and we’re right back to that impasse mentioned above."
You're rambling in a desperate fashion here. Link your fictional impasse to this commentary.
"The majority gets to decide whether invocations accomplish anything. The first amendment does not let you shut it down because you don't like it any more than I can shut down your postings on this blog."
No, see, the First Amendment has to do with governmental functions, not private speech such as this blog.
And, again, what does an invocation accomplish, except to make the artificially pious, like Fuentes, look good to the religiously sympathetic.
"Rotating invocations is a fine idea – except that your crowd has already brought suit against local government agencies to stop that."
Really? When?
"And yes, there have been very few atheist regimes in history. But boy have they been deadly. They killed lots more people in the 20th century alone than all the religious wars in history."
Really? More than all the religious wars in history? Come on now.
"Finally there’s all that stuff about Bush and evolution and gay rights . . . . More subject changing. We’re talking about public prayer, not any of that other stuff. Focus."
Actually, you brought up the idea of censorship, and were given some concrete examples of religiously based censorship. Sorry if actual concrete facts upset you.
You academics don't get it at all!
Your blabber only confirms your desire to hear youself speak.
Ouch! You win!
whew!
Glad that has been decided once and for all.
Now go to spring break.
Post a Comment