On April 30, 1789 Washington tok the presidental oath of office with his right hand placed on a Bible.  At the end he added the words, "So help me God." and bent down and kissed the bible.  This was not part of the oath and yet every president after Washington has uttered these same four words upon finishing the oath." 

 

As a private citizen, asked to speak before any body, it is his right to invoke any deity he wants. As a representative of the ruling body, he is subject to the rules of that body. The ACLU threatens a lot, but the body had made the rules. The question was not his right of free speech, but the right of the ruling body to make rules regarding what can be said in its name.

This is a simple "my house, my rules" situation. Would your right to free speech be violated if you were in my house and I asked you to please not say "X, Y or Z" words? I have to agree with DrGuy on this one KFC. As a representative of The City Council in Fredricksburg, VA, Turner must comply with the rules and regulations set by them when his words are representing the City Council.

You have to keep in mind KFC that when you are addressing someone, not as an individual, but as a representative of, in this case, a City Council, your words reflect not, just yourself, but the entire group you are representing.

This is a suppose scenario:

Imagine if you belonged to a group, say a book club. And you spend time with your club members reading books that you all enjoy. Let's say your group is composed of people from all kinds of race and religions and the common taste of books brought you all together. Now, imagine that 1 of them is the President of the club and he/she just happen to be, say, Muslim. Every time he/she starts the meeting they open the dialog with a prayer to Alah and lets say you do not like that (I don't know you enough to know if this is true so this is just a suppose scenario). Do you not believe he/she should be tolerant to other peoples beliefs and avoid mentioning any God in his open remarks so as to avoid offending a member?

My opinion is yes he/she should be since this is an open club, the comments that represent the club should be general rather than leaning to any particular religion (or political party, or race, etc).

Yes, because of the threat of the ACLU...usually that's how it works.  ACLU shows up, presents a letter of intent to sue and everyone scrambles to accomadate. 

My feeling is it's been okay for eons and now all of a sudden we are abandoning all the things that made this country so good and respectful towards our creator. 

Does Jesus really care if this Pastor can't invoke his name involving a government entity? Well I'm sure he's not honored or pleased.  In fact I'm sure he's grieved in some respects that those he loved and created have turned their backs on him.

 Is he surprised?  No.  I don't think so.  Would Jesus have brought a lawsuit against the government in this case?  No.  I think what Jesus would have done was walk away and shake the dust off his feet and move on.   That's what he told us to do.

So Charles I'm not so sure I agree with this Pastor.  I do understand his position and maybe bringing this up before the court was ok once but he should now not file an appeal and move on.   Fighting it would not bring honor to God anyhow. 

 

 

I have to agree with DrGuy and CharlesSC, it's a public place/government place, and as such there's a line seperating them.

We're not abandoning KFC, statistically religious people still make up a large part of this country; religion as a whole is doing just fine, if it's willing to coexist and not be forced. Sadly, that doesn't happen. That goes for secularism as well. Granted, I'm biased towards the latter (even though I consider myself spiritual to a point), but they both need to just pipe down and learn to coexist.

Blegh, ranted a bit. Mea culpa?

And thanks for the platform, so to speak.

~Luca

I'd just say it anyways. If they tried to try me, we'd see how well they could persecute. The punishment is not enough to outweigh the glory of serving God. God should be in control of my life, not the ACLU or the wackos who wanna keep me from praying after asking me to.

If someone is asked by a governing body to do a service, and that person accepts, he or she is no longer acting not as a "private" citizen, but rather, a representative of that body. In such a case, the person must follow the rules of those he or she is in-service to.

Be well.

This one is a sticky one.  While the reverend is a private citizen (not a government official), he was in his right to decide for himself whether he would break the policy or not.  However, when he openly admitted his intentions, so they had every right to see that their policy would be enforced. 

I think the 4th circuit court was collectively stoned here though.  The reverend is not a government official, so nothing he does can possibly be construed as "government speech".  They should be mocked and laughed at for even making such a stupid statement.

If we are to listen to them, anyone participating in a government sponsored event would become a government official (at least as long as they were participating).  All floats in a 4th of July Parade would be subject to government restraints (for example).

Unless there was some kind of written or verbal agreement by the reverend to adhere to the policies of the city counsil, he is in no way bound by their rules.  If agreement was given, then he should be.  If he agreed but chose to reneg, then he should be treated like anyone else who chooses civil disobedience.

 

The bigger point in this case, however, isn't whether or not a specific reverend chose to adhere to the policy or not.  The real case (and the case which the ACLU should have persued) is in the wording of the policy.  Does it only censor the name "Jesus" or does it censor all references to specific invokations.  If Jesus is banned, but Buddha, Allah, Muhammed, or even Mike the Headless Chicken (PBUH) are allowed, then it's a discrimination case, not a case of censorship.