"In God We Trust" is good enough for the federal government, but apparently not so in Waukegan where the city's new mayor has banned an opening prayer at City Council meetings, instead opting for a "moment of silence." Wouldn't it be nice to silence politicians for a long time, instead of just a moment?
After having a prayerful invocation since the 1990s, Mayor Robert Sabonjian has made the City Council ungodly by removing this usually uneventful paen to the Almighty. Prayers for public bodies usually don't cause a stir. In this case, the mayor's heavy hand may do the opposite. Just another case of Christians being pushed to the background. Next thing you know, there go the downtown Christmas decorations.
The Hound doesn't recall getting rid of the opening prayer as one of the mayor's campaign platforms. Perhaps this is part of his cost-cutting moves, because the city paid $50 to Bishop Joseph Coburn of the All Nations Church of God Holiness in Christ for each of his twice-a-month invocations.
If saving money is the ultimate goal, then perhaps the mayor and City Council can call dial-a-prayer to petition the Lord. That's free.
Last I checked, we still had a separation of church and state in this country.
Perhaps if we stop leaning on God, and start working with each other, we will actually get some progress in Waukegan. Instead we continue sniping about non-issues, while the city continues to flounder.
THE HOUND SEZ: The last you checked? Pidgeon, you must be a candidate for a pigeon drop. Faith-based agencies get state and federal monies, churches don't get taxed, parochial institutions get federal research grant money. While this isn't the Islamic Republic, that separation is only on paper.
If the mayor decided not to have an opening prayer at city council meetings, then the next time he runs for mayor, I WILL BE SURE NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM, I WILL VOTE FOR THE OTHER PERSON!!
THE HOUND SAYS: Oh, by the time Mayor Bob has four years under his belt, being mad at him for yanking the opening prayer is just going to be the least of your worries.
The mayor's efforts would be better served worrying about something IMPORTANT.......
Maybe getting rid of all the guns on the streets, curbing drug use, removing all the drunks from the roads.....YA THINK????????????
And I thought this guy had something on the ball.........
WHAT A JOKE.........Getting rid of a meeting opening prayer.....
THE HOUND SAYS: Keep laughing, Humpy!
The mayor was right to eliminate the prayer before council meetings. Thankfully, he comprehends the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States, unlike our previous mayors. Minority religions also need to be protected and their followers not treated like second-class citizens. We are all equal under the laws of this land, and Mayor Bob understands this. Thanks to Mayor Bob.
THE HOUND SAYS: Well, Roxie, if minority religions need to be protected, have a revolving representative from various faiths say the opening prayer. Good compromise, don't you think? This is what they do in various situations, such as the inauguration of President Obama. By the way, Roxie, get your head out of the Constitution and into a history book and find out how this country was settled.
What about separation of chutch and state?
THE HOUND SAYS: What about it? Looked at the back of a dollar bill lately? What's it say: "In God We Trust." And, the addendum, as Jean Shepherd noted, is, "All other's pay cash." Perhaps you and Roxie can share a history book and study who settled such places as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvannia, Maryland --- religious folks. Also, what is a "chutch"?
I look at it a little differently. By having the moment of silence, you avoid having to fight the "Separation of Church and State" groups who frequently want to initiate protests, lawsuits, etc regarding prayers; whether in Council chambers, or graduation ceremonies, etc. If these same groups don't fight the 'moment of silence' here, then they have less to stand on if this same 'moment of silence' is then allowed to take place in these other venues.
THE HOUND SAYS: You mean like the "moment of silence" practiced by the House of Representative chaplain when the lower chamber begins its business?
One problem with the expression of religion under governmental auspices is that when one faith is recognized (consistent references to Christ, for example in what one may think is a non-denominational phrase or liturgy), other faiths are subtely considered to lack favor, to say nothing of those who choose to pursue no mainstream faith.
For example, there was a recent court case about allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a court house. The first question is, who's version or interpretation of the Ten Commandments are being utilized? You are aware that there are distinctly different interpretations of the Ten Commandments? Are you of the belief that the two or three versions should be given equal prominence in the courthouse?
Yes, the separation of church and state is on paper. That paper is at the National Archives. The Constitution -the one that George Bush disregarded early and often with the lock-step approval of the GOP-led Congress (a little dig at the clear GOP-bias on this blog): Congress shall not specifically recognize a distinct religious faith.
The inclusion of one faith's verbiage, beliefs, and liturgy -inadverently or due to a lack of knowledge of others' beliefs - is the definition of the exclusion of others' and is not necessarily demonstrative of the US of A.
Yes, there is a freedom of speech. However, speaking in the public arena opens one up to the comments of others where those other people enjoy the same rights you claim for yourself.
THE HOUND SEZ: Ah, where to begin Markie Marc? "A dig at the clear GOP-bias on this blog"? Sez, you. Separation of church and state is not, as you contend, in the Constitution. It is in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." And, despite your other contention, it says nothing of recognizing a distinct religious faith --- it deals with establishing religion, and allowing those who do practice their various faiths the freedom to do so without fear or favor. Despite our bending over backward to make sure every religion --- and those non-believers --- is included across America, we remain a Christian land. The original colonies were founded or colonized by those seeking to escape and practice their own brands of Christianity. Over the generations, other religions have come to the land and been included in most governmental occurrences. One only needs to return to the inauguration of President Obama to see the inclusion of every religion --- at a government-sponsored event. As for you specious argument over the Ten Commandments --- who cares as long as there's 10.
Where to start,
It is sad to see an elitist, exclusive (instead of inclusive) approach being taken by a 'journalist' showing a hesitance to accept the comments of others as equal or as having any standing. It also suggests that he took American History 101 from Newt himself!
History Lesson: The Bill of Rights contain the first 10 Amendments to A) the Delcaration of Independence, B) The Constitution, or C) The Magna Carta. B is the correct answer, hence if not a true part of the Constitution, (?!) the Bill of Rights are directly tied to the Constitution, regardless of what GOP-esque semantics one wants to use or hide behind. (Tax cuts to the wealthy - good; spending on healthcare and eduation-bad despite the fact that BOTH REQUIRE SPENDING and/or BORROWING!) If you look at Websters, Amendments are not deemed as being separate documents or instruments, though solely corrections or changes to the original document - Duh.
Also, if one is so dependent upon how the country began, why aren't you demanding slavery (which many a faith defended), savagery toward certain non-believing populations, and discrimination? This fondness for how things used to be, either during the tumultuous years of the country's founding or the difficult years (for most of us) of Reagan-Bush is unsettling to me and shows a hesitance to embrace others and change. Remaining static is not always a good thing and is not always a way to lead. What private sector leader doesn't or shouldn't embrace change? (Media conglomerates?!)
That the writiers of the Constitution - who also had a disdain for a co-mingling of church and state due to concerns about one corrupting the other (Jefferson-you've heard of him, yes? and he is still considered a founder of the country in your textbook, correct?) - admitted they were not perfect and all-knowing (unlike a certain journalist) demonstrates their foresight and is evidenced by allowing for amendments. That the amendments also require wide-spread acceptance before being enacted also speaks to the importance of a variety of views. And thank goodness for that!
If you accept that Congress shall not establish a religion, how is selecting one faith's version or interpretation of the 10 Commandments not evidence of endorsing a religious doctrine or the partial establishment of an official religion? Neither are acceptable using the Constitution's guidelines by your own admission.
Also, Christianity, like most religions, is by no means perfect. Various forms of it, both in the Colonies, and world-wide, were the partial basis for crusades, genocide, exclusion from having rights in some of the 13 colonies by others (unchurched or non-believers), and an inquisition, you may recall, is one reason some came across our continent in the first place. Spain , a clearly Christian country wasn't necessarily treating her citizens in a righteous manner. So much for the joys of living in a Christian nation!
Therefore, there is no basis - if one wants to use an empirical or fundamental approach to things - for the idea that America was created as a distinctly Christian nation. This is so, especially considering the broad continuum of faithS that were followed from almost day one.
Are there references to a Creator? Yes.
Are there references to the Judeo-Christian tradition? Yes.
Did some of the founders read the Apostles? Yes.
However, especially using your stickler-sense of correctness, there are no tangible references to the US being a Christian nation that is not anecdotal.
Good thing you're not running for office. I'd hate for our laws to be based mostly upon one person's faith or their interpretation of their faith, let everything else be darned. The needs of the people and best-practice be darned as well.
Oh, wait, we already have that with Ensign, Vitter, Burton, Sanford (great Christian sinners, wouldn't you agree?), Boehner, McCain (bomb, bomb, bomb - so much for bringing about an end to war and swords into plowshears, my brother), et al.
Finally, with all that is wrong with the world, why the wasted time spent on proving that the United, diverse States of America is a Christian nation? Why the divisiveness?
Also, regarding the sentiment that this blog has a GOP bias, I'd correct that if I could see any Repubs being taken to task for things they may want to re-consider or that they should've been called out on.
Ms. Schmidt's done a bang-up job of running things what with her 'letter to citizens' that told us nothing, the wasteful non-binding referendum in a State - like many - without resources, and appointing someone who may not have a clean/angelic record to the county board.
Mr. Waller's 3 trials to convict one person in the murder of a teenager.
Mr. Waller's failure to prosecute local officials in an equal manner
. (Friends/Repubs out of the system, Dem's indicted before the evidence is in). You sure he's in the right County?
The Nepotism involved in County and local government (County Court Clerk, a suburb where the mayor's brother-in-law was recently hired to a tax-payer funded job, and the plethora other right-leaning local government officials that can have a family reunion when having a staff meeting.)
Hence, there is a contention that, based on GOP mis-steps being 'over-looked' and unique verbiage being utilized for certain Dem's, that there is a clear bias. Of course, if I am correct, someone favorable to the GOP is not used to thinking for themselves or evidence-based practice. There's a preference for do as I say not as I do, disavowing research, science, and polls, and embellishment.
THE HOUND SAYS: Whoa, with all the research tools at one's fingertips, you quote "Webster's" to The Hound as a source on the Bill of Rights. What's next, using Reader's Digest as source material? And which Webster's did you use, Markie Marc? New World College Dictionary. If this is a preamble to moot court, you're all over the map, fellow.
Let's review and keep to one topic and not jump from constitutional matters to political matters and carping over Republicans and their sex lives (did any of them carry on in the White House like one well-known president?) or the way they operate their offices, to which they were duly and constitutionally elected (unlike a current Democratic Illinois senator and Democratic governor).
The Continental Congress adopted the Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787 and on Sept. 28, 1787, the Congress voted to send it to the 13 states (Vermont became the 14th) for ratification. The federal government declared the Constitution in effect on the first Wednesday in March 1789. With The Hound so far?
The first Congress, at its first session in New York City on Sept. 25, 1789 --- six months after the Constitution became an official document --- submitted to the states 12 amendments for ratification. Of course only 10 were adopted, the Bill of Rights.
In the preamble --- which The Hound doubts one will find in "Webster's" --- to the resolution offering the proposed amendments, Congress said: "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, espressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidencein the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution, be it resolved."
Indeed, the Bill of Rights were after thoughts to the Constitution, which spelled out how the federal government should operate and which rights would be abrogated to the states. As The Hound reiterates from the original posit: The First Amendment is not a part of the Constitution, but an amendment adopted AFTER the Constitution was in force, and a member of the original Bill of Rights.
As for the other two amendments not ratified of the original 12, one dealt with apportionment of members of the House of Representatives; the other related to compensation of members of Congress. That finally was ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment.
Many a scholar have argued that the Bill of Rights were required in order for some States to sign onto the Constitution.
Given that the hearings in the Senate today were 3.5 hours of introductory remarks and that at the time of our nation's founding there were few media or travel conveniences, a couple of years is not outside the realm of timely; this especaily juxtaposed with the idea that the Congress didn't necessarily meet year-round.
Also, the disdain or propensity to appear superior, snarky, and less than cordial cannot be overlooked. Doesn't necessarily reflect well upon any affiliates of the blog, but that's just me. Maybe FAKE News or CNN is looking for someone.
Of course the lengthy history 'lesson' allowed the Hound to over-look the comments with regard to the importance of diversity, not engaging in semantics, and not legislating based on one's specific religious faith.
Dodge and weave 101.
THE HOUND SAYS: Perhaps, it is just you. You mention The Hound being "snarky". Au contraire. You, sir, are the fictional monster with little sense of humor.
What did you say that was funny? In order to demonstrate my sense of humor, I'd have to see something that was funny, in addition to over-looking the firm or less than cordial verbiage being directed my way (fictional monster? - how mature!).
Also, the inability to accept other's comments without labeling or copping out via a weak, unfounded excuse like 'I was being funny' is not always looked upon as being righteous or 'Christian.'
(Concerning Clinton, Repubs tried to remove him from office, including Henry Hyde who had had an affair and failed to be honest about it with the people from whom he sought to be elected and paid! I don't think that Vitter, Burton, or Sanford are/were subject to censure or forced resignation. This is the definition of a double standard. But maybe not in the land of people dreaming of fictional monsters.):
Also, you contradict yourself. You state that the government shall not favor a specific religion, though you have no problem with one faith's version of the 10 Commandments being selected (FAVORED) over other faiths' versions. OOPS?
I am also reminded that, as I alluded to before, Christians were not the only ones leaving Spain for the so-called New World (in the words of Mel Brooks - The Inquisition - what a show!) though since those folks weren't Christian, they don't rate in your book ("Who cares about the different versions" aka who cares about other faiths aka if they are not like me, they don't merit half a second's consideration).
Finally, concerning fear or favor, when one person's (i.e. a Member of Congress' or a President's) interpretation of their faith is being used as the sole basis for legislation, military operations (Bush's divine inspiration to go to war?), etc., is that not something for the rest of us to be wary of? This is so especially considering the fact that there are a variety of viewpoints and ideals within a certain faith, much less amongst a variety of them!
Now I see why the blog doesn't include 'respectful' two-way conversation. I must be expecting too much of my fellow human.
THE HOUND SAYS: You want respect? Listen to Aretha Franklin. And quoting a Mel Brooks movie? Now that's funny.