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
7
7
0
It's probably not necessary to ban it since these prayers/moments of silence do not officially establish a religion. Chaplains giving invocations are not necessarily appealing to one religion over another(although nearly always monotheist); they're obligated to provide services to all requesting spiritual guidance, secular and non-secular. They are still responsible to commanders for ensuring all have the opportunity to worship as they choose. Whether it's included in mandatory events should handled case by case at commanders' discretion. It's really a no win situation; you can't please everyone. As long as no one is forcing you to bow your head and pray there's no harm being done.
(7)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj (Join to see) - the problem is that having a chaplain present a prayer or invocation at a mandatory formation or event will likely fail the Supreme Court's test that they established in Lee v. Weisman. The government cannot force someone to attend an event where prayer is presented by the government, in support of any god or religion.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Maj Rob Drury - You can't pray quietly while the event is going on? You have to pray out loud to make sure everyone around you is forced to hear you and has no option to walk away? Apparently, being an obnoxious prayer warrior is more important than respecting your fellow servicemembers.
I like how Christians refuse to acknowledge Matthew 6:5-6.
I like how Christians refuse to acknowledge Matthew 6:5-6.
(0)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
MSgt Lowell Skelton - "I like how Christians refuse to acknowledge Matthew 6:5-6."
Nice job distorting the context. This verse refers to the motivation, not the act.
Why don't you try these on for size?
Matthew 18:20
Matthew 18:19
1 Thessalonians 5:11
James 5:16
2 Chronicles 7:14
Romans 15:5-6
Luke 9:28
Acts 2:42
Matthew 18:19-20
Colossians 3:16
Romans 8:28
Acts 1:13-14
Psalm 133:1
Acts 2:1-47
Acts 1:13-15
Acts 12:12
Ecclesiastes 4:12
Deuteronomy 32:30
Psalm 55:14
Nice job distorting the context. This verse refers to the motivation, not the act.
Why don't you try these on for size?
Matthew 18:20
Matthew 18:19
1 Thessalonians 5:11
James 5:16
2 Chronicles 7:14
Romans 15:5-6
Luke 9:28
Acts 2:42
Matthew 18:19-20
Colossians 3:16
Romans 8:28
Acts 1:13-14
Psalm 133:1
Acts 2:1-47
Acts 1:13-15
Acts 12:12
Ecclesiastes 4:12
Deuteronomy 32:30
Psalm 55:14
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Not getting into a scriptural dick-waving contest. The context is valid. I'll reiterate the questions, since you ignored them:
You can't pray quietly while the event is going on? You have to pray out loud to make sure everyone around you is forced to hear you and has no option to walk away? Apparently, being an obnoxious prayer warrior is more important than respecting your fellow servicemembers.
You can't pray quietly while the event is going on? You have to pray out loud to make sure everyone around you is forced to hear you and has no option to walk away? Apparently, being an obnoxious prayer warrior is more important than respecting your fellow servicemembers.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
A1C Tyler Santy I am not religious at all and for my own personal reasons. I am always bored at ceremonies when they did the whole prayer thing BUT I would never think to whine or complain about it because I have too much respect for my fellow soldiers and for my fellow human beings that do want to pray or have a religious ceremony at any function. Sitting their listening to them in no way infringes on my beliefs or harms me in any way. It is not infringing on my right to freedom of religion because they are not brainwashing you or ordering you to partake in their beliefs. I guess if I was in your Chain of Command I would tell you to sit there quietly and respect the rights of the people that do believe because it is not hurting you at all and no one is forcing you to believe in anything but You are suppose to act like a soldier and sit there and show respect to your fellow soldiers. So quit your damn whining or go join the cub scouts. I know when I was in the service if I had ever brought up this point to any of my COC I do believe I would have been in for a long list of duties and had been volunteered for every additional duty that came up until I learned how to be a more considerate and better soldier.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
This debate will continue, but having them stopped will infringe on my right, or someone else who practices. I worked with Hindu, atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc., and we all had a standing rule: No matter your belief, do not downgrade or infringe on their faith. Many times, I had meals with these men, who all prayed differently, yet, we all remained respectful to each other. Some choose not to pray, they would sit quietly while I prayed, then we carried on. I an not Hindu, but when my old SMSgt retired, he had a Hindu priest doing a blessing. I did not get mad, I watched, listened, learned, and respected the occurrence, to which I may never be a part of again. He was grateful we all attended, even out Atheist coworker found in educational.
Now, when it comes to the whole "happy holidays" thing, I always ask which holiday they are wishing for me to be happy. When they say all of them, I respond with "I only celebrate one at a time, so is it Halloween, Thanksgiving, Rosh Hashana, Hanukkah, Christmas, New Years, St. Patty's, July 4th, Memorial, Veterans, or Labor Day?" I usually get an "Uhh..." or "all of them." If I get the latter, I ask why no party occurred for those holidays.. Which really gets me the "uhh" response.
Bottom line, though you may not believe or practice, I ask that you allow those of us who do, to continue to have our prayer. To many its comfort, blessing, and respect to a higher power, greater than ourselves, giving us guidance and peace as we journey on our road ahead. Our faith is not because we believe we are better, it is because we know we are fallible, and desire a greater purpose with/for our lives.
Now, when it comes to the whole "happy holidays" thing, I always ask which holiday they are wishing for me to be happy. When they say all of them, I respond with "I only celebrate one at a time, so is it Halloween, Thanksgiving, Rosh Hashana, Hanukkah, Christmas, New Years, St. Patty's, July 4th, Memorial, Veterans, or Labor Day?" I usually get an "Uhh..." or "all of them." If I get the latter, I ask why no party occurred for those holidays.. Which really gets me the "uhh" response.
Bottom line, though you may not believe or practice, I ask that you allow those of us who do, to continue to have our prayer. To many its comfort, blessing, and respect to a higher power, greater than ourselves, giving us guidance and peace as we journey on our road ahead. Our faith is not because we believe we are better, it is because we know we are fallible, and desire a greater purpose with/for our lives.
(5)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
Maj Rob Drury - Uhm, yes there is. Your voice does not get to trample someone else's voice. Remember, they have that right also, and by not allowing them their say in a ceremony, you are doing just what you are advocating against. So once again, I have to take part in your religious practice, but you do not have to take part in mine?
Can I have someone also say a benediction from my religion? How about the hindu guy standing in the corner. Are you going to let the Satanist get his turn also? So, you are dead wrong. It should be all invlusive or none at all. And seeing that it would be near impossible to have the time for everyone to have their part in the service, we can leave it for a time before or after the event.
Can I have someone also say a benediction from my religion? How about the hindu guy standing in the corner. Are you going to let the Satanist get his turn also? So, you are dead wrong. It should be all invlusive or none at all. And seeing that it would be near impossible to have the time for everyone to have their part in the service, we can leave it for a time before or after the event.
(1)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
MSgt Jonathan Stump - So; you'd be okay if we scheduled something for every possible religious sect or variation? I doubt it. Your intention is clear; and it has nothing to do with inclusion. Nice try though.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
Maj Rob Drury - So you are saying that you are okay if we exclude someones religion as long as yours is included? My intention is to get religion out of a purely secular event. It seems that your intention is to exclude all others except the one that you pick.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I used to have the opinion of, I don't believe in your religion, I am not bowing my head when you pray. It took until a few years ago(I am at 19 years of service now) to realize that the bowing of the head was no different than head and eyes forward while being at attention. It was a position to assume. I didn't have to do anything but maintain the uniformity of the formation. Now I use it as a moment for myself. I am not so self centered that I will take away from someone else what they believe in, seeing as how I am one of the minority. So, let them pray. Bow your head with the rest so as to do your best to maintain military bearing and make the unit look good. Reflect on life, or whatever during this time.
(5)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Maj Rob Drury - That would be you. Not bowing one's head is NOT being disruptive, distracting, or disrespectful. Period.
(0)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
MSgt Lowell Skelton - Now you're being ridiculous. I don't believe you've ever seen or heard of anyone being called out for simply not bowing one's head and nothing more. Never happened, never will.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Maj Rob Drury -Not ridiculous at all. I can point to one example right here in the discussion, by PFC Blake Hildebrand . He said, " I've been personally reprimanded and I know others in my unit that were as well for not participating. They claimed it as disobeying a direct order or something like that. I don't remember the specifics."
(1)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
I'm guessing that neither of you "remember" some of those specifics, conveniently. I don't believe for a second that there wasn't more to the story. Try a little critical thinking next time. I might be wrong about "never happened, never will;" as it's probably an almost certainty when Islam takes over. Our current terrorist-in-chief is already working overtime on it.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Airman Santy,
Since you are an atheist, does it really bother you to have a moment of Silence or a non-sectarian prayer?
Since you are an atheist, does it really bother you to have a moment of Silence or a non-sectarian prayer?
(5)
(0)
SSgt Thomas Scott
Treaty of Tripoli - Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; Nov 4, 1796.
It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic.
It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
SGT Jerrold Pesz - yes, but the inclusion of a religious portion of a ceremony representing only one religion DOES seem to smack of an official religion.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jonathan Stump
SSgt Thomas Scott - we do not even need that. Trace back the lineage of the American system of government. It came from English common law.....which came from........ and you will see that it is not at all based on Christianity. Has ZERO to do with Christianity.
(0)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
MSgt Jonathan Stump - " the inclusion of a religious portion of a ceremony representing only one religion DOES seem to smack of an official religion."
It sure does. Good thing that that doesn't happen.
It sure does. Good thing that that doesn't happen.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
As a chaplain who performs these I always start by saying, "If you are willing please join me in prayer." This statement is intended to clarify a voluntary invitation so that those who wish not to pray do not have to. I've had many atheists approach me with gratitude for the way I "invite" rather than say "let us pray." The way things are presented matter and respect matters on both sides of the coin.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Establishment clause?? Another malinformed liberal in the ranks. Maybe you mean against the "separation of church and state" that somehow or another never made it into the constitution?? That liberal Supreme Court construct that was based on a letter that was written to a group who was afraid that Big Government would try to rule the Church in the same way the King Henry had and wanted to protect the church from that rule?? How many times is God the Creator mentioned in the United States various founding document?/ How many State Constitutions mention the Creator as giving people their rights, not the government?? If you are truly and atheist, with no belief in a higher power, then why get so offended that another does?? Do you get this mad that someone believes in fairies and unicorns??
(3)
(0)
CW3 Stephen Mills
How is pointing out that the founding fathers recognized religion and used it changing the meaning of the words. The words give freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The mere fact the founding fathers wrote the date in that matter supports this argument. Do Atheist not recognize 1700s as actual dates because they don't believe "Our Lord" existed? Dates, even scientifically are listed as BC (Before Christ) and AD (After Death). When you list an AD date as "Year of Our Lord" you are clearly recognizing the idea of Jesus as Lord.
No, it didn't signify Christianity as a favored religion, but it definitely meant that religion has its place even if you argued it was a cultural place, which could also be argued about prayer at military ceremonies.
No, it didn't signify Christianity as a favored religion, but it definitely meant that religion has its place even if you argued it was a cultural place, which could also be argued about prayer at military ceremonies.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Don Ward - I'm sorry that you view the term "fundies" as derogatory. Fundamentalists are from a movement that gained steam in the early 1900s, when a 12-volumne work titled "The Fundamentals," set out the views of the movement. According to orthodox standards, many of those standards were at the very least heterodoxical, and in some case heretical. The fundamentals included the literal interpretation of the bible, the inerrancy of the bible, the principle of substitutionary atonement, and so on. Both the Baptist movement and the Presbyterian movement have a fundamentalist background today. Fundie is just shorthand for fundamentalist.
I've also addressed the Orthodox perspective, the Roman perspective, the liturgical churches perspective, the apostolic succession perspective, and so on. They all believe in the same imaginary guy, and the fact that there are so many differences instructs one that the god must not be very good at communicating with his followers, else there would not be in excess of 40,000 denominations. I'm not bigoted against fundies, I think all of the permutations of the Christian god to be equally without evidentiary support.
Back to the subject. Are you familiar with the background of the Danbury letters? That the Danbury Baptist wrote Jefferson because they were being taxed to support the state church of Connecticut, the Congregationalists? That they were asking him to use his influence to get it stopped, and that his reply was that there should be a "wall of separation" - fairly clear cut moral support of their request.
By the end of the second great awakening in 1840, all of the states had ended their support of a state religion. The churches which would later be identified as fundamentalist had grown significantly during that period. Today, the major views pushing their version of religion on others is typically fundamentalist.
I've also addressed the Orthodox perspective, the Roman perspective, the liturgical churches perspective, the apostolic succession perspective, and so on. They all believe in the same imaginary guy, and the fact that there are so many differences instructs one that the god must not be very good at communicating with his followers, else there would not be in excess of 40,000 denominations. I'm not bigoted against fundies, I think all of the permutations of the Christian god to be equally without evidentiary support.
Back to the subject. Are you familiar with the background of the Danbury letters? That the Danbury Baptist wrote Jefferson because they were being taxed to support the state church of Connecticut, the Congregationalists? That they were asking him to use his influence to get it stopped, and that his reply was that there should be a "wall of separation" - fairly clear cut moral support of their request.
By the end of the second great awakening in 1840, all of the states had ended their support of a state religion. The churches which would later be identified as fundamentalist had grown significantly during that period. Today, the major views pushing their version of religion on others is typically fundamentalist.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
CW3 Stephen Mills - I don't date anything as BC or AD (which is actually "anon domini" - year of our lord; not "after death"). If it has to have a date suffix, I date it as either BCE or CE. What others do is up to them, but Jesus, if he actually existed, was merely a man, not a deity.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
SFC Don Ward - No, the date reads like THIS: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth" Note the significance of *THE TWELFTH*. If you're trying to base some tenuous "Christian nation" claim on that date, you should note that Madison and the others who drafted the Constitution thought the number of years since American independence to be very important. Does that mean we worship the United States as a deity? No, and neither does the traditional rendering of the date. You've been deluded by too many fundie websites.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Myself, I either sit or stand respectfully until the magic show is over for those who believe. Did then and still do but I do disagree with SGM Quick's comment below that if you don't like it don't serve. I know I have been retired for awhile but last I heard it is still the military and not the Crusades.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is another one of those things that chafes my ass. First allow me to say that you are a bigger man then most as your being atheist and not minding prayer for ceremonies.
I've had this debate before and simply, just as you believe, the minute or two takes for a prayer or silent meditation won't hurt anyone.
So ban it, no that's just dumb even if you want to pray to the little green people riding a comet that is gonna hit the Earth...
I've had this debate before and simply, just as you believe, the minute or two takes for a prayer or silent meditation won't hurt anyone.
So ban it, no that's just dumb even if you want to pray to the little green people riding a comet that is gonna hit the Earth...
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google