On Invocations
By
There’s been some controversy about government meetings beginning with prayer. Buncombe County’s Attorney Michael Frue warned Commissioners that they were opening themselves up to lawsuits unless they discontinued the ritual. The issue comes to City Council tonight, and I look forward to hearing more about the legal points that brought the practice under scrutiny. Aside from avoiding legal ramifications -
I believe that moving to a moment of silence will allow for each individual to pray in the manner she or he deems best or simply to take a few deep breaths.
As a part of my Presbyterian and Quaker upbringing, I appreciate the fact that people do not require a government-sanctioned intermediary to have a relationship with the divine. Having watched religious divides scar nations, I appreciate that our government doesn’t presume to elevate one set of sacred beliefs above another.
Government is an act of cooperation among all the people. Choosing particular religious prayers or invocations needlessly marginalizes, while silence allows for a community expression available to all.
27 Comments
January 26th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Do away with the ritual entirely. Even a ‘moment of silence’ emulates religious ritual, in a secular sort of nod to the tired tradition of delusion and mysticism. Be brave and drop it altogether. Or, take up cheerleading like high school. “Give me an A, give me a S, ….whataya got? ASHEVILLE, ASHEVILLE, ASHEVILLE, ra, ra, ra!
Rate this comment:
2 
3
January 26th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Meh. We still pray and we’ll keep on doing so. We defeated the ACLU attempt to take down our Manger Scene at the Courthouse and our current board of commissioners (Democrats and Republican) have made it abundantly clear (5m 20s into video) that this will not change.
I’m hoping that the Buncombe Commissioners do get rid of it so that the voters will have an issue that will help them make their choice of who to vote for in the future. Their choice just might surprise you.
Rate this comment:
0 
6
January 26th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Thanks, Diogenes, for your input. I rather like a moment of silence, and I don’t find it particularly “brave” not to engage in it. I also like the cheerleading idea. Maybe pep rallies before meetings out at Pack Square? You’re in charge of the squad.
Rate this comment:
2 
1
January 26th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Messed up that second. It should go here.
Rate this comment:
0 
1
January 26th, 2010 at 9:42 am
It is kind of funny that a lot of people will get up in arms about this, yet when it comes to local government issues that actually affect their lives they can’t be bothered.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:19 am
I hear ya Shadmarsh. It’s very difficult to get people to pay attention to the local level governing boards, let alone the state level.
People pay attention to the federal level, where their voice matters least. I don’t know how to change the apathy people feel unless they are made to realize that their freedoms are being stolen from them on a local level.
Rate this comment:
0 
2
January 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I see a moment of silence as the best compromise. Pray (or don’t) to whatever god(s) you choose.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Hate to sound snarky (well no, I actually don’t), but given the scope and scale of issues the City is attempting to deal with, I would think a “pray to any God you can find” mentality would be true for anyone attempting to be a civic leader right now. Does it need to be codified and ritualized. I don’t think so. I agree with Shad- this is the least of our problems. Whatever it takes to get you through the day, or meeting, but I don’t believe it needs to part of the agenda.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Doesn’t a moment of silence seem, logically, the most inclusive, best compromise, that allows EVERYONE the opportunity to do what they need to do, within themselves, between them and their belief system/personal deity?
And that is why it is unacceptable to so many people. Inclusive, accepting compromise, applied logically, is about the last thing that one should expect from the public and their elected representatives.
With a few exceptions known to most of us, the”great unwashed” and our leaders are so parochially small minded that this could result in lawsuits, wasted time and energy (and money), with the outcome being even more polarization and ignorant fear.
Please, someone take away my “comma” key……………
Rate this comment:
2 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Great comments, GS, DC, and Shad. Lets move to a ‘moment of silence’ and be done with this already.
Most citizens are fine with a ‘moment of silence’, as far as I can tell. Only the ideologically entrenched fringe sees the loss of ‘official’ prayers at city council meetings as an “attack on freedom itself”. Even fewer find fault with a ‘moment of silence’, except to say “What’s the purpose? Lets get to business already”.
Its a fair compromise.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Negatory, Cohen. Your commas are correctly used. Some editors compulsively remove too many commas and merely end up creating needless ambiguities, a fad I scorn.
I was going to note the contrasting origin legends between US theocrats (who typically claim the US is a Christian nation based on the religious nature of the Plymouth Colony) and secularists (who consider the founding of the nation as an independent state in the late 1700s as the starting point). I am obviously among the latter: the Constitution, with its prohibition of any official state religion, reflects the sentiments of men who knew that the history of Europe in the preceding centuries was one of almost continual religious warfare and persecution. However, in trying to bolster my grasp of Dominionist thinking, I was distracted by the folksy yet infallible Conservapedia American History Lecture 1 which teaches us that “From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, George Washington). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the “cabinet” of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.”
So I learned that when the President is in his Cabinet, he is like a pair of drawers.
p.s. Followers of Azathoth may insist on invocations accompanied by “the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.”
Rate this comment:
1 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
A moment of silence was not a principle upon which this country was founded. According to James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention on July 28, 1787 81 year old Ben Franklin requested that the members pray stating “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? . . . I therefore beg leave to move henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that Service.” Guess you guys don’t like $100 bills and empires.
By the way, Samuel Adams proposed on Sept. 6, 1774 that the Continental Congress be opened with a prayer. Can you drink to that?
Rate this comment:
2 
3
January 26th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Does Azathoth play at the drum circle?
Rate this comment:
1 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Wikipedia and the Library of Congress support Nathan’s assertion re: Ben Franklin. Bear in mind that Ben doesn’t endorse any particular sect, there.
And Jim, Azathoth is kind of a celebrity. But he (or it?) may sit in incognito. I ain’t ruling nothing out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 26th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Guess you guys don’t like $100 bills and empires.
Interesting framing of the role of religion in government, Nathan.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Barry, That was Mr. Franklin’s words, not mine. My personal belief, doesn’t have to be yours, is that I should praise God from whom all blessings flow which includes family, finances, health, and all other aspects of our lives. Apparently according to his comments at the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Franklin held a similar view.
Rate this comment:
0 
1
January 27th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Dick Cheney famously sent that Franklin quote out on his Christmas cards in 2003, and it was widely viewed as a not-so-subtle invocation of the American Empire’s Divine Right to Wage War against anybody who happens to sit on whatever oily commodity we desire.
http://www.slate.com/id/2092800/
“Guess you guys don’t like $100 bills and empires.” Nathan Ramsey
This is perhaps the best argument against government sponsored religious worship that I’ve yet seen: a former high-ranking local official expressing disdain that we, the dissenters, don’t recognize the principle reason for such invocations, money and power.
Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson – they all recognized the corrupting influence of government on religion (and many religious people today share that belief). Tying their faiths to the secular whims of politicians was a recipe for the sad, oppressive church/states of Europe that sent them seeking a New World.
And Franklin? On his deathbed, he admitted his disdain for the Church that had grown up around Jesus’s teachings, and his own agnosticism:
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
It’s worth noting that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 failed to adopt Franklin’s plea for government-sponsored prayer. This won’t stop some from continuing to spread the “America is a Christian Nation” fallacy, and we’ll be hearing this sort of thing for a while yet:
“Smite our enemies and make us stinkin’ rich, O Lord! Stinkin’ rich, I tell ya!! Amen! Pass the ammunition! Now, I believe the County Manager has a report on wastewater treatment…”
Rate this comment:
1 
1
January 27th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@ Nathan
Are you really gonna go down this road again? I thought we already provided many examples proving your inept understanding of “founding fathers”, religion, and the constitution (and this from a former BC commish, of all things) on a previous thread.
BTW, you never responded to my question from an earlier thread. I’ll ask again.
Can you show that prayer, to your god or any god, has a positive effect on board meetings. I can present scientific studies that show no and even negative effects of prayer on recovering patients.
No one cares if someone in the past prayed at a meeting. Show us how its time spent effectively in the attempt to make our city or county better, please.
Show that these prayers you endorse are not sectarian, while your at it, please.
So far you’ve done nothing except to TRY and give a precedent, all the while ignoring the opposing precedent that has been presented. Broken record, anyone?
Come on, Nathan, show some kind of reasoning other than ‘This is what we do. Don’t question why. Its just what we do because others did it’.
One last thing. I asked you before and I’ll ask again. Would you have argued with the same reasoning in opposition to women’s suffrage or the abolishment of slavery?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Barry- Our founders recognized the importance of freedom of religion and you and I are certainly free to worship according to our own beliefs or free not worship anyone or anything. It is very clear that our founders, like some of the comments in this post, weren’t in opposition to prayers at public meetings. By the same token, there is nothing that mandates an invocation and based on the courts interpretation of the US Constitution for over 200 years, an invocation is totally consistent with the First Amendment.
Our local, state, and federal government bodies legally can choose to begin their meetings with a prayer, it is their call.
Blindfaithfulness – no. I enthusiastically support women’s suffrage and oppose any form of slavery.
Rate this comment:
1 
5
January 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Barry, That was Mr. Franklin’s words, not mine.
Please, Nathan. You may not like my snarky analysis, but these words were yours, not Benjamin Franklin’s:
“Guess you guys don’t like $100 bills and empires.”
This was your spin on Franklin’s words – those of us who oppose government-sponsored prayer are somehow not on the right page when it comes to petitioning God for wealth and power.
If you want to pray to a Christian God yourself, have at it, in private. If jackbooted thugs try to knock your door down to stop you from doing it, I would hope to have the courage to stand with you to defend your rights, even if I don’t share your beliefs. But don’t stand up as a secular elected official and suggest that if we don’t pray to your Christian God, He may shut off His bounty, & we’ll all die shivering in the dark.
Centuries from now, people will look back & lump this in with sacrificing virgins to ensure a good harvest.
Rate this comment:
2 
1
January 27th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
shvll hs pwrfl rsn t cmpltly nd nvctns, nd d t qckly, tht Bncmb ds nt shr. Tht s shvll’s glbl rpttn fr ldrshp n bcmng th frndlst plc n th sthst fr nnchrstn trsts nd tchncl tlnt, sch s mst Jpns nd mny Swds. D y thnk th Ggl fndrs wnt t st thrgh nvctns?
shvll nds t ct bth n ndng nvctns bth bfr nd bynd nywhr n th Sthst nd cmprms lss thn rvls lk Chpl Hll, Ky Wst, Plm Bch nd crtnly Bncmb.
Bncmb hs n sch rpttn t prtct r dvnc nd s shld wt fr shvll nd cmprmz mr thn shvll. shvll nds t ld n ths nd Bncmb nds t vd stlng shvll’s thndr.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
As amusing as snarky analysis sometimes is, it is a futile rhetorical devise when arguing with the likes of Nathan. It is as unlikely he will ever see the fault in his position. He clearly believes his is a virtuous one. Reminds me of the old adage, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn’t work and only annoys the pig.”
Nathan–don’t take offense, like Michael Muller did, I am not calling you a pig, only pointing out the futility of attempting to change something that won’t.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Well I’m not giving up.
Nathan, you must realize that a statement like “Guess you guys don’t like $100 bills and empires” makes it hard to believe you only see public government-sponsored prayer as a humble, personal appeal for wisdom from the divine. There’s an unmistakable whiff of moral supremacy there.
Do you seriously think Jesus would respect the pursuit of earthly wealth and empire as worthy of invoking his name, in public no less?
Rate this comment:
3 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
@ Nathan
Still no reasoning, Nathan? Nothing? Just, ‘we have an invocation because…’, huh?
Well, if thats not a reason to pray then I don’t know what is. Wait. That IS the reason people pray, because the people before them did. No reason. No proof of effectiveness. Just because its the way things have be done for a long time.
Sorry but thats not good enough.
The council and board’s purpose is to question and vote on matters of purpose/reason and impact/effect with regards to the city and county. Why on this matter is a reasoned and pragmatic approach so hard to come by? It couldn’t be because invocation advocates are afraid to find , instead of the ‘wizard of oz’, a guy behind a curtain?
1)Show me these invocations are not sectarian.
2)Show me it’s not offensive and is inclusive to all citizens.
3)Most of all, show me that it has some effect or reason(other than ‘its what we do’).
Otherwise, ‘We still pray’ may as well be ‘We still sacrifice goats and burn frankincense to please the gods before figuring out how to handle the snow and how to rezone a piece of property’.
Also, the suffrage and slavery questions aren’t about support or opposition but, rather, your sole argument/’base of reason’ that ‘Invocations have been done in the past so lets keep doing it regardless of impact or effectiveness’.
Why is it so hard to tell me the reason for praying before these meetings??
Rate this comment:
1 
0
January 27th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Barry – Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system known to man. The Bible doesn’t teach us that money and financial prosperity is bad, it teaches us that the love of money is bad. If we place our finances about our love for God, our family, neighbors, and others, we are going to get off track. Our founders recognized as a self evident truth, the Creator is the one who gives us our liberties so it is appropriate we pray to the Creator from whom all blessings flow. My personal faith teaches me that God gives us seasons of prosperity and times of trouble but my faith should not be dependent on my personal situation.
Blind faithfulness – As I said petition your elected representatives and if they agree with you, they have the right to choose whether an invocation is given. Otherwise change the US Constitution to your liking.
Despite all of America’s imperfections now and from the time of our founding, I don’t think our history, on the whole, has been a history of exclusion and offensiveness. The wonderful thing about this nation is that when there has been injustice such as slavery, segregation, etc., over time, individuals stood up and worked to create a more perfect union.
Rate this comment:
0 
1
January 28th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Did I hear my name mentioned?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Apparently MM, you take offense when someone compares you to a pig. I don’t know – that’s just what I heard.
Rate this comment:
0 
0