Posted on May 28, 2016
Should prayer during non-religious ceremonies be banned when it comes to mandatory events?
48.9K
844
660
24
20
4
I am an atheist, but I also believe strongly in the right to practice your own religion freely. When it comes to ceremonies, I believe that prayer could be seen as a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. I believe this because there are many different beliefs recognized by the government (atheism/agnosticism, satanism, Buddhism/Hinduism, etc...) that fall outside of the Christian spectrum, and having a Chaplin lead prayer before mandatory events forces non-believers and followers of different faiths to participate in a practice outside of their own. Is it just me, or should prayer during non-religious ceremonies be banned when it comes to mandatory events such as promotion/graduation ceremonies and commander calls to ensure religious freedom is enforced?
Atheism
Ceremony
Religion
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 102
0
0
0
In this country you have the right to practice or not to practice religion. It is Godly principles that have made this country great and only these principles as found in the freedom of the truth will continue to make this country free. If you do not want to pray, don't. But do not infringe my liberty to pray either in public or privater. If the commander decides he wants a prayer at commanders call, then go woth it. If the Chaplain wants to pray over the boys before deployment, then stand aside son. But do not infringe on our religious liberties because you are offended by a prayer.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
Once again, look at the hypocrisy that you are spouting. Stand aside? Why? Why do I have to stand aside when you do not for me?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Randy Engesetter
Hypocrite? Is that the only theological word you know? You have the right to practice or not practice religion. Your rebel nature will not submit to the God. Now if we could just kill that conscience.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I respectively disagree. This country is one built on faith. We can't start managing to the exceptions to that faith, the country will go down hill rapidly.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I think it would be inaccurate to deny that the soup is heavily "salted" with Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic) mores and codes. I also believe that most religions have very similar thoughts on how to deal with and treat each other. So most can rightly claim to recognize a little of their own spice palette in the soup.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
Maj John Bell - you would be completely wrong. The soup was not salted. There are books you can read on the subject written by the men that founded the country. They will tell you that you belief is completely wrong.
Please do not come back and tell me I am wrong. Read what Adams and Jefferson wrote on the subject along with most of the other founding fathers. The documents that started this country are secular. PERIOD. Washington wrote about it, Adams, Jefferson, and the others.
Please do not come back and tell me I am wrong. Read what Adams and Jefferson wrote on the subject along with most of the other founding fathers. The documents that started this country are secular. PERIOD. Washington wrote about it, Adams, Jefferson, and the others.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Jonathan Stump - I'm coming back and I'm telling you that we disagree. I doubt that we will ever conclusively prove to one another they are flat out wrong. It never fails to amaze me that two men may read something and one is shocked that the other may have a different interpretation. If you engage me expect a response, and expect that that response may not agree with your opinions. If you do not want my opinion don't engage me.
1) First lets come to an agreement on a definition of a founding Father
--There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention,
--There were ninety individuals at the first federal Congress where, the First Amendment and Bill of Rights were framed
--There were nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, those overlaps should not be counted twice
--55 + 90 - 19 = 126 Founding fathers
Do you agree or would you like to set some other criteria to determine who we are talking about?
2) I propose that we use the term "correspondence" to cover both private letters to individuals or groups; and open letters or published editorials, polemics, and defenses, including those published under pseudonyms. Is that acceptable?
3) I propose that we use the term "original source books" that were written as books by a founding fathers. Is that acceptable?
4) I propose that we use the term "original source collections" where the founding compiled the works of other and cited them to substantiate their assertions. Is that acceptable?
5) I propose that if we are going cite "correspondence", "original source books", or original source collections, we must provide enough information for the other to find the citation, verify its existence, and view any statement within its context. Is that acceptable?
1) First lets come to an agreement on a definition of a founding Father
--There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention,
--There were ninety individuals at the first federal Congress where, the First Amendment and Bill of Rights were framed
--There were nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, those overlaps should not be counted twice
--55 + 90 - 19 = 126 Founding fathers
Do you agree or would you like to set some other criteria to determine who we are talking about?
2) I propose that we use the term "correspondence" to cover both private letters to individuals or groups; and open letters or published editorials, polemics, and defenses, including those published under pseudonyms. Is that acceptable?
3) I propose that we use the term "original source books" that were written as books by a founding fathers. Is that acceptable?
4) I propose that we use the term "original source collections" where the founding compiled the works of other and cited them to substantiate their assertions. Is that acceptable?
5) I propose that if we are going cite "correspondence", "original source books", or original source collections, we must provide enough information for the other to find the citation, verify its existence, and view any statement within its context. Is that acceptable?
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
You are trying to control the discussion by limiting the criteria. Do you really think that men who fought against a king that told them they would be religion X and that was it, would also make the same mistake by allowing it again?
We have original source material, it is called The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We have correspondence from Washington to rabbi's. We have Jefferson's thoughts on the passage of Virginia's Religious Freedom laws. We have Adams writing on the Treaty of Tripoli, we have a hundred other things. Your battle would be uphill at best.
Jefferson himself called the Bible a "dunghill". He believed that most of it was children's tales. He believed in a Christian god, but to nail him to a particular faith is dubious at best. He did believe in Christ, but he stated on several occasions that priests were little better than charlatans.
“The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount.” — To Dr. Waterhouse, 1815
Thomas Paine, we will not even get in to what he said. He was very anti-establishment religion.
Adams stated that it was not a Christian nation. You can talk about the mis-translation all you want. Every senator that was there had a copy of what they passed made for them. It is irrelevant other than what they read and voted on. We can wax all day about what someone thinks that anyone thought at the time. What was voted on was clear and none of the present senators lodged any kind of protest.
We could go on and on and on with this. It is not going to change a thing. Include all religions or exclude all religions. The answer is clear. Anything else is total hypocrisy.
We have original source material, it is called The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We have correspondence from Washington to rabbi's. We have Jefferson's thoughts on the passage of Virginia's Religious Freedom laws. We have Adams writing on the Treaty of Tripoli, we have a hundred other things. Your battle would be uphill at best.
Jefferson himself called the Bible a "dunghill". He believed that most of it was children's tales. He believed in a Christian god, but to nail him to a particular faith is dubious at best. He did believe in Christ, but he stated on several occasions that priests were little better than charlatans.
“The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount.” — To Dr. Waterhouse, 1815
Thomas Paine, we will not even get in to what he said. He was very anti-establishment religion.
Adams stated that it was not a Christian nation. You can talk about the mis-translation all you want. Every senator that was there had a copy of what they passed made for them. It is irrelevant other than what they read and voted on. We can wax all day about what someone thinks that anyone thought at the time. What was voted on was clear and none of the present senators lodged any kind of protest.
We could go on and on and on with this. It is not going to change a thing. Include all religions or exclude all religions. The answer is clear. Anything else is total hypocrisy.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The establishment clause states that congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Having a prayer at a government function is not a law respecting an establishment of religion. However, we do seem to be ok with respecting the establishment of atheism as a state religion. It is fine to require you to be at a function where a prayer is offered and it is fine for you to listen and observe the prayer offered, you have not been required to recognize the prayer as valid or change your beliefs to match. Requiring an individual to adopt a religion is violating the establishment clause.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Young man, you have a lot to learn about the founding of our country. You should have paid attention in class, that is if they actually taught the history. Bout founders believed in "Divine Providence" and our nation has relied on it in times of trouble. Now you have a right to believe as you wish but to say to the Majority you can't do that!, is unacceptable and UN-American.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
A1C (Join to see) - But you would establish the anti-theists as the arbiters of what is or is not appropriate.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
you might need to go back and re-learn. The founding fathers did not believe that religion and government function went together. You are wrong if you think it is so.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Maj John Bell - Well, the believers have done a horrible job of it so far, so give someone else a chance.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Jim Weeder
I wish I could sit down with the founding fathers today and ask them this question; "What did you mean in today's terms" I just read a letter by George Washington to his wife about him taking command with a today's version of it, the comparisons were interesting! I have seen lots of arguments on the first amendments that were written saying "They did not think about how it would be today" (2nd long rifle ves semi-automatic -example)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You are forced to attend these things? Enjoy the time off your regular nonner job, we were forced to go to commander calls but that's about it. Everything else was always an option because there are more important things to worry about, like getting planes FMC. There are more important things to worry about, but if you are so 8up that you can't stand it, go talk to your supervision, coc, and your shirt...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I had the same issue as a young airman, to be honest, no there should not be any sort of prayer in the compulsory formations. But here is what u do...stand up and walk out, if anyone gives you shit explain you are standing up for your religious freedom and if they think it is still an issue then maybe the IG should wiegh in. I have been walking out for 15 of my 16 years in the AF and have never had anyone back down and I haven't had to even threaten to bring the IG into it. Oh and btw I'm SF so you can imagine how assholeish and stubborn my leadership has been in general.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
If the chain had the courage and desire to press the issue, I'd put my money on the command, especially if it got to the Supreme court. " Good order and discipline" of the armed forces is already established as an "over-riding Governmental Interest" and precedent for denying service members rights that cannot be denied civilians in their world.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
"Good order and discipline" does not include compulsory participation in religious rituals or violating the Constitutional rights of those compelled to attend mandatory functions.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Even as a Christian, I have thought it strange that an organization that had chaplains representing almost every religion prays only to the Christian God. Most would say if you're not a Christian, but believe in another God, Goddess, or higher power, just pay silently to them, and if your atheist just stay silent. In my opinion, I like the prayer. It makes me feel like at least one person cares enough to pray, even if it's not to everyone's specific higher power.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am a VSO Chaplain and an ordained Christian Evangelical minister. We acknowledge faith in (a) higher power(s) in both the major VSOs and the military because our country and laws were based upon Judeo-Christian constructs and beliefs. I know... This is an active-duty/NG/Reserve military question, not a VSO one, but the concepts are similar as we are dealing with military personnel and mindset.
Therefore, does this mean that one faith is paramount or that any such belief is mandatory? NO, but we hold true to the concept of a higher power of your choice. Therefore, the prayers should be non-sectarian to address as many DoD acknowledged faith groups as possible. Some may not be okay with any prayer at any time but that is not within our tradition or a positive for morale of the faithful. Instead, those not wishing to 'pray' may instead 'keep a good thought for...' If that is too much to ask then simply think about whatever you choose and please respect that many have spiritual faith they hold dear. You definitely have the right to believe or not but those that have faith are uplifted by prayer, even in the most generalized terms so consider it a 1 or 2 minute helping hand for your Comrades that need it.
I think a more prevalent issue is the failure for some Chaplains to understand that their primary job is to comfort, console, and counsel rather than convert. Unless the service is specifically requested for a specific faith group -- such as a funeral, wedding, or worship service -- then the non-sectarian format that is approved and any other is disrespectful to those of differing faith groups or disparate beliefs. Anyone that cannot stop from one-religion or one-religion's-denomination proselytizing when various faith groups are a part of the service should consider being singularly a pastor/rabbi/priest/misc. and not a Chaplain. Just my 2 cents.
Therefore, does this mean that one faith is paramount or that any such belief is mandatory? NO, but we hold true to the concept of a higher power of your choice. Therefore, the prayers should be non-sectarian to address as many DoD acknowledged faith groups as possible. Some may not be okay with any prayer at any time but that is not within our tradition or a positive for morale of the faithful. Instead, those not wishing to 'pray' may instead 'keep a good thought for...' If that is too much to ask then simply think about whatever you choose and please respect that many have spiritual faith they hold dear. You definitely have the right to believe or not but those that have faith are uplifted by prayer, even in the most generalized terms so consider it a 1 or 2 minute helping hand for your Comrades that need it.
I think a more prevalent issue is the failure for some Chaplains to understand that their primary job is to comfort, console, and counsel rather than convert. Unless the service is specifically requested for a specific faith group -- such as a funeral, wedding, or worship service -- then the non-sectarian format that is approved and any other is disrespectful to those of differing faith groups or disparate beliefs. Anyone that cannot stop from one-religion or one-religion's-denomination proselytizing when various faith groups are a part of the service should consider being singularly a pastor/rabbi/priest/misc. and not a Chaplain. Just my 2 cents.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
SSG Jennifer L. Smith - and once again I say that you are dead wrong. The US is not founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Once again, it is based on British Common law which in turn was based on Anglo-Saxon Law, which in turn was based on Germanic tribal law with Roman and international law as well as European common law thrown in.
Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox and Howard v. Moore will spread more light on it. There are so many amicus briefings against what he was saying that the overwhelming evidence says that the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or any other religious teachings have not been the basis of our laws. In addition to the law scholars, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a whole slew of Alabama clergy, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and a quite a few other religious entities came out in opposition of the Judge in the case and also filed amicus briefings. So, once again, US law is not based on religious tenants.
Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox and Howard v. Moore will spread more light on it. There are so many amicus briefings against what he was saying that the overwhelming evidence says that the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or any other religious teachings have not been the basis of our laws. In addition to the law scholars, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a whole slew of Alabama clergy, the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and a quite a few other religious entities came out in opposition of the Judge in the case and also filed amicus briefings. So, once again, US law is not based on religious tenants.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSG Jennifer L. Smith
I believe that there are two points that you are missing.
First, you cannot force unwilling people to participate in your religious ceremonies and rituals. The service members do not have a choice, it is a mandatory formation or event, and they are ordered to be there. Case law is extremely clear on this, without exception it is forbidden. I don't wish to participate in your prayers, sectarian or not, but I don't have a choice since I've been ordered to be there. Are you going to allow me to leave? Or will I be forced to participate in it?
Second, the United States is a secular nation. Adams signed a treaty (unanimously ratified by the Senate) that the U.S. was not a Christian nation. Jefferson, in a letter to Adams in 1823, said "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." These are hardly the views of pious Christians.
I will also point out that there were several attempts to put references to god in the Constitution, all were overwhelmingly voted down. The Constitutional Convention was remarkable, in fact, for its lack of faith--at one point during heated arguments, Deist Benjamin Franklin proposed opening each day with a prayer--and the session immediately adjourned. No vote was taken on the proposal, and the sessions continued to start without prayer.
I believe that there are two points that you are missing.
First, you cannot force unwilling people to participate in your religious ceremonies and rituals. The service members do not have a choice, it is a mandatory formation or event, and they are ordered to be there. Case law is extremely clear on this, without exception it is forbidden. I don't wish to participate in your prayers, sectarian or not, but I don't have a choice since I've been ordered to be there. Are you going to allow me to leave? Or will I be forced to participate in it?
Second, the United States is a secular nation. Adams signed a treaty (unanimously ratified by the Senate) that the U.S. was not a Christian nation. Jefferson, in a letter to Adams in 1823, said "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." These are hardly the views of pious Christians.
I will also point out that there were several attempts to put references to god in the Constitution, all were overwhelmingly voted down. The Constitutional Convention was remarkable, in fact, for its lack of faith--at one point during heated arguments, Deist Benjamin Franklin proposed opening each day with a prayer--and the session immediately adjourned. No vote was taken on the proposal, and the sessions continued to start without prayer.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
Capt Gregory Prickett - Correct, there are numerous other things that I can drag into the discussion. I have a whole file full of rebuttals to anything that can be brought up. I have been through this before. The first point that you bring up is the situation that we need to address. If it is a mandatory formation, then there should be zero religious connotation in it. I would almost push to say that you could not have anything religious on base at all, but baby steps.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
SSG Jennifer L. Smith - "because our country and laws were based upon Judeo-Christian constructs and beliefs" If that were true, why would over half of the 10 Commandments be explicitly prohibited by the Bill of Rights?
"liberty cannot survive among men without its Divine connection." I guess this explains how repressive theocracies have been such bastions of liberty.....
"liberty cannot survive among men without its Divine connection." I guess this explains how repressive theocracies have been such bastions of liberty.....
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I understand your thought process, obviously. I'd only point out that it's been a tradition here for over two centuries, as well as harking from a far simpler period in history when to question such things ran counter quite frequently to both the culture, as well as the mores, of the period, that's all I'm trying to say, honest. The whole question over the past sevl decades had quite literally been beaten till it's been delayed, you know? It's fundamentally irresolvable to my way of thinking and most likely will probably always be that way pretty much, I think, irrespective of individuals preferences, tastes, wants, and or wishes, I expect honest be most eager for your thoughts , many thanks, hope was of use.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
It used to be the in polite society you could disagree without taking offense and still maintain respect for each other. People could quietly tolerate the minor inconvenience of giving elbow room to someone else's minor impositions.
Now it seems that "polite society" is no more. Any expression of conventional beliefs, and social mores, in fact any less than a full-blown endorsement of conduct or beliefs outside the norms, constitutes a extreme intolerance and a deeply personal attack. The "attacker" must be beaten into submission and have their life and livelihood up-ended.
I think this coincides with the popularizing of "trash talk", the death of discretion, and the rise of reality TV programming.
Now it seems that "polite society" is no more. Any expression of conventional beliefs, and social mores, in fact any less than a full-blown endorsement of conduct or beliefs outside the norms, constitutes a extreme intolerance and a deeply personal attack. The "attacker" must be beaten into submission and have their life and livelihood up-ended.
I think this coincides with the popularizing of "trash talk", the death of discretion, and the rise of reality TV programming.
(0)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
Sorry for the typos, I'd meant flayed, of course, not delayed, I'm on a temperamental tablet given to such errors. Your thought process is certainly well founded, I'd agree, by all means. Let me just give the whole question some more thoughts on light of what you'd mentioned, it's an interesting philosophical problem deserving of some reflection, by all means, many thanks.
(0)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
To continue, I find your phrasing of considerable interest. I agree that there is an unfortunate tendency in modern society to discuss things in a fashion that earlier periods in history would obv deem excessively frank, certainly, by all means. There also has to be considered, as well, that the imediacy of reaction in present day society, with the consequent possibility of nearly instantaneous feedback, is also, most likely, an added factor to be considered in such a problem. Whether right or wrong, engaging in such activity, even at something reqd, will, unfortunately ,inevitably, freq lead to that sort of purely emotive reaction , I think there's at least some truth to that viewpoint, though I found yourmmeanner of expressing the overall concept youd described thought provoking, certainly, by all means, hope was also of interest, many thanks.
(0)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
Sorry for the typos again the tablet again, I'd obv meant your manner of expressing your overall concept was most thought provoking, by all means, many thanks, sorry for the gaffe.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are invocations done at private events NASCAR for one. Can there be a balance with a moment or prayer/silence vs exclusion vs 1st amendment?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I think I may be misunderstanding your question. So if I step on your toes, it wasn't on purpose.
Private event - my house, my rules... but I will try to be inclusive if you are not a jerk
Non-compulsory, public event - go with the flow, compromise if appropriate
Compulsory, official event - personal religious views and displays are not appropriate
Private event - my house, my rules... but I will try to be inclusive if you are not a jerk
Non-compulsory, public event - go with the flow, compromise if appropriate
Compulsory, official event - personal religious views and displays are not appropriate
(0)
(0)
SPC George Rudenko
AH perfect, private vs public. Castle Doctrine, I am the King of my Castle and I can set the rules (within law). I think TOO many people make a mole hill when there aint no miles. An atheist can "wish for health and good outcome" and a religious person can pray.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Maj John Bell - Minor correction:
Compulsory, official event - Official and personal religious views and displays are not appropriate
Compulsory, official event - Official and personal religious views and displays are not appropriate
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google