- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
Ohio mayor vetoes city council prayers
SHELBY, Ohio (AP) — A mayor has vetoed a proposal that would have required a city council in Ohio to start meetings with a prayer.
Shelby Mayor Bill Freytag told the council in an e-mail that he took the action Wednesday on the advice of the city’s law director, who felt the ordinance was unconstitutional.
The measure was approved 3-2 earlier this month by council members in the city of 49,000 about 65 miles north of Columbus. Supporters pointed out that the Ohio Legislature and the U.S. Congress open sessions with a prayer.
The mayor noted that the proposal had been the subject of much debate and had resulted in numerous phone calls and letters to his office, some from outside the area.
The city council may try to override the veto, which would require a vote of 4-1.
- Requires free registration.
Comments
ATHEIST !
It is a public office. Religion is a private affair. The mayor could very well be a religions person, but understands religious belief has no place in public affairs in a country that is not dictated by religion, no matter how much religious folk of certain types would like it to be a Theocracy, STAN!
If you like religious governments so much, maybe you should move to the Middle East. They specialize in religious governments.
The founding documents of this country were decidedly Christian. The US Supreme Court ruled so in or about 1895.
Unless there is a massive revival in this once blessed nation, you will see the continued poverty, lawlessness, and destruction continue coast to coast. This city council are the only people who are "getting it" and the Mayor is just fearful of lawsuits that are guaranteed to flow from this.
If you don't like the reality that this country was founded as a Christian nation, go to Russia or China where secular humanism makes the public feel all warm and cozy.
Just a question. Where does it say in the US Constitution that there is any separation of Church and State? I've NEVER seen it. All it does say is that the US congress may not establish a national religion. The spirit of that was establishing a Christian denomination that all the nation states would be forced to follow. I see no prohibition of nation states establishing state religion as Mass becoming the Catholic state and Virgina wanting to become the Baptist state, etc. That is an extreme of it but what does the Constitution actually say, not what is case law?
It's all well to speak nostagiically of the frontier days in America ; but America must continue to update its practices to continue to be a relevant part of the modern world . Remember , 95% of the world's population is NOT American . I know a foreign investor in the Valley , who is bringing in much needed capital to provide jobs - which he is allowed to do . As a developer & local taxpayer, He attended a Council meeting , as he is allowed to do by law . While he was there , the Council members faced the American flag & gave the oath of allegiance & members of the public present were expected to do the same . Of course he was unable to do so & felt embarrased because he owes allegiance to another flag . he compromised , by standing but remaining silent . A small thing , some may say ? Maybe. But its an example of the way official processes will be increasingly be tested for diversity not just in the local context , but in the international context .
absolutely correct. We must encourage diversity, denounce our national sovereignty
and join the new world order so as to have jobs. Why aren't there American investors? We are no longer a producer country but have become a service economy.
While I mention Biblical concepts, one of the most glorious kingdoms of the past belonged to King Solomon. His kingdom was divided and crumbled after his death because he had 300 wives and 700 concubines from all over the known world. They carried their cultures and their gods into the sacred city of Jerusalem and it fell from power. If that is good with you, OK by me, I don't care to trade my future glory for a crumb of bread today.
While I would not want to offend any foreign guests who may visit us it is important that they understand the concept that when one is in Rome, one is expected to do as the Romans do.
It's not a church nor is their a priest, pastor, rabbi or any other educated religious person there so why pray? All your doing is conducting Bussiness not attending a funeral. But that is what needed is a funeral for this subject.
Ianacek (82 comments) posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago:
Of course he was unable to do so & felt embarrased because he owes allegiance to another flag . he compromised , by standing but remaining silent . A small thing , some may say ?
+++++
No, not so small, actually. He did the correct thing - he stood to show respect, and he kept silent to further show respect. What on earth is there to be embarassed about - he's not a citizen and doesn't know, nor is he expected to know, the Pledge of Allegiance. I've seen plenty of natural-born citizens who make a point of lounging and sprawling during the Pledge, and being in general disruptive during it. THEY are the ones who should be embarassed (they should be embarassed right out of the venue, IMO). Your friend did fine.
In a nation under God, prayer to God for guidance is never unconstitutional, unless it is untrue that we are a nation under God. Perhaps we, as the Shelby mayor, are really a nation under Mammon. Wrong choice.
Why should we cater to foreigners,if they are offended by the pledge of allegiance,that's to bad.Would other countries,cater to foreigners as not to offend them,NO is the answer.We have changed ,the entire make up of our country,to make sure,every group is not offended,wake up people,that does not happen anywhere else in the world.
We are a nation under GOD,but for how long ? We can't have it both ways.
handyman, do your research. Our founding fathers were not decidedly Christian. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were Freemasons. George Washington was affiliated with the organization so much so that the Grand Master of NY's Masonic Lodge swore in the first president with a bible from the lodge. Our founding fathers tried to build this nation on freedom from religious persecution or persuasion. All the things that they fled Europe for. Would they really build a country based solely on one religion?
There are so many misconceptions here regarding "Separation of Church and state". Here are some facts;
The phrase is not uttered in our constitution. It was however included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Dunsbury Baptists in 1802.
The letter was written to qwell fears the baptist had regarding the constitution and its cause and effect on religion. In the letter he wrote the following;
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
That given, the letter was to assure the Baptists that the church had been protected by the first ammendment. There is simply no other way to intterput it. Now lets look at the 1st ammendment wich states;
>>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting religion" (Respecting) used here as (concerning) or (Considering).
So I see the nothing in the first ammendment whatsoever that would prohibit practice of religious faith on public property. If anyone else sees it please show me where it is.
However, If the mayor votes into law a measure prohibiting practice of religion on public property he would then be in direct conflict with the 1st ammendment wich clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion".
Bottom line, It is not unconstitutional to exercise religious beliefs on public property.
However it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting religion, or only allowing certain religions to express themselves.
ATOWNPARENT,
Regarding your post on Freemasonry, Are you aware that The Freemasons are a fraternal order. Members join for the purposes of socializing and networking, and the organization itself commonly expresses its purpose as to "make good men better." It has nothing to do with religion.
To opine that the founding fathers could not be BOTH Free masons and Christians simoutaneously is ludicrous.
It is the equivalent of saying you cannot be member of the roatary club and still be a Christian or Muslim or Catholic. It makes no sense.
History shows these men mentioned to be deeply religious and members of Churches
Their proposal was unconstitutional because you can not demand people to pray. They wanted to make it so that you HAD to pray. He did not make it a law that you could not pray at the meeting, he vetoed the proposal to make people pray. He did nothing unconstitutional, he didn't make a law saying no praying, he simply vetoed their saying that you has to pray.
This instance of the foreign gentleman standing silently during the pledge is the proper thing to do. It happens frequently when an American sports team is playing a Canadian team. It shows respect for your opponent when you allow him to honor his country. If you can't do that, and a lot of people on both sides can't then you show disrespect for your own country.
I misread it, You are correct. He cannot make a law regarding religion, period. By the same token he could not make a law banning it.
If some of them care to gather in the hallway or the parking lot for a prayer prior to a meeting, they have that right. But no one can pass a law requiring it.
I skimmed through the article and responded more to the comments. I stand corrected.
When so many get repulsed by religion one only has to wonder what their intent is in life . The immoral don't like rules to live by .
Just because someone does not follow a religion does not make them immoral. Frankly, some of those most devout have been proven to be more immoral than someone who does not follow Christianity.
amen, atownparent
I suspect some of the above posters who are rallying around prayers in public meetings would be the same people who would protest Koran readings at the same meetings? Government should promote no religion what so ever.