Meditation/Invocation – Is it Acceptable to end 120 years of tradition?


The Salisbury City Council inserted Meditation/Invocation in where the Lord’s Prayer used to be. SAM. I. Am. is still trying to figure out what is offensive about the Lord’s Prayer and why all of a sudden it has become a problem.

City Clerk Brenda Colegrove found evidence that the Lord’s Prayer has been recited at meetings since around 1890. 120 years of tradition and we just stop because someone is uncomfortable with it, yet has never said a word the four years that she has been a Council Member. Then City Council Vice-President Debbie Campbell abstains – refusing to not take a position on it.

What has been lost in this whole debate are the words from prayer. What is so offensive about them? Asking for forgiveness or forgiving others? Asking not tot be led into temptation or being delivered from evil? Or is it asking God’s will be done? Are these principles to controversial?
One can also use the Jewish argument, because Terry Cohen is Jewish. However, Christianity is an off shoot of Judaism and the words of the Lord’s Prayer was first spoken by Jesus, a Jew.
Still, there is the argument about lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions. That also goes the other way because the Supreme Court has ruled in favor as well. There is no specific law about the Lord’s Prayer because Congress has no such authority. Having recited it before every meeting is not a legislative act and neither is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Now that also mentions God, should we remove that as well.

Here are the words to the Lord’s Prayer:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come, 
thy will be done
in earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us. 
And lead us not into temptation, 
but deliver us from evil. 
For thine is the kingdom,
the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen. 
Taken from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, 1662.
If this offends you by us posting it, oh well.


Anonymous said...

1. We don't all pray to the same god. 2. They're not in there to worship ANY god or gods, they are in there to the work of the municipal taxpayer.

This is a non-issue. In the interest of fairness and inclusiveness, NO prayer should be said aloud before the meetings. A moment of silence for reflection/prayer is more than sufficient.

Anonymous said...

There is no longer majority rule in this country. Everything is set up as to not offend that one person who doesn't like something, which ends up offending everyone else. Either that, or the voters in Salisbury elected people who don't actually represent their beliefs and interests.

Anonymous said...

Majority is not supposed to be as you suggest Anon 10:29 am. In other words, the majority can never suppress the rights of the monority.

This is a non 1ssue.

Anonymous said...

So what is their supposed right? To NOT hear the Lord's Prayer? Then leave the room.

Liberal Elite said...

There are two issues here.

#1. Is that religion and religious views should not be imposed on others. Anyone with an ounce of libertarian views has to believe this.

#2. is that the prayer itself is somewhat flawed. Do you actually think when you say it?

"Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name."

This is a declaration that god exists.

"Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven"

This claims that our universe is deterministic, and that someone/something is driving it. There's no evidence for that. In fact, quite the opposite.

"Give us this day our daily bread."

Begging fo food? Being thankful is OK, but begging?

"And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us."

Is this a conditional wish, or two separate wishes?
And why should we be so easily forgiven for our trespasses. Maybe our lives would be better if we didn't forgive ourselves so easily, or forgive others so easily. Sometimes it really is better to not forgive.

"And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."

Temptation is not the same as evil. Some temptation is damn good. Why try to equate them if not to squeeze the joy from following good temptations?

"For thine is the kingdom,
the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen."

It's not our fault. It's not our fault. Yea. Right.

cruggly said...

The voters should of had the oppurtunity to vote on this. I personaly dont care one way or the other. I have to vacume the floors, take out the trash, and clean some mirrors. Its not who or what means takes you into your mirror, its what you see and achieve once your in it. Its not the path that takes you there.

Liberal Elite said...

And then there's the issue of misplaced allegiance.

If you hire some gardeners to come work in your yard, and after you pay them and tell them what work you want them to do they say. "Thanks, but we want to ask your Dad over there about what work needs to be done around here."

If they're hired by the people, they owe their allegiance to the people, not to god.

Two Sentz said...

Ok, so how do you guys feel about this one? This is along the lines of what 10:29 said. Is it fair to mess with 3000 people, multiple generations, and 70 years of tradition because one person from last year took offense to a cross? Mind you, that person didn't even live in the district. And mind you no one else cares but that person.

Liberal Elite said...

If you want to work for God on your own time, that's fine. But if you're working on my nickel, I want you to work for me.

The whole religion in government/school activity stuff just gives the impression that they're wasting taxpayer dollars. Just do the work of the people, and quit fooling around.

Two Sentz said...

I can tell you didn't read the link. Basically the school district has been holding graduation in a certain religious building for 70 years because it is the only facility large enough. Now the ACLU wants the building to cover their cross during graduation. They said no. Now there is an impasse. All because of one lady who doesn't live there and wont be back.

afterthegoldrush said...

I can carry that weight.

Liberal Elite said...

@RS "I can tell you didn't read the link."

And your conjecture is incorrect. I simply chose to address the larger issue of proselytization on the public dole.

The building doesn't really matter. The usage of the building matters..

Two Sentz said...

Well then you clearly misinterpreted it. In no way can the owners of the building be held responsible simply b/c a school district CHOSE to hold an event in that building. A PRIVATE building.

Liberal Elite said...

No TS, I understood completely. I conceded your point.

But the only building larger enough??? We're talking about New Jersey...

Two Sentz said...

I didn't make that up. I've read a few different articles about this. They said it was the only one large enough within the school district. I guess they do all the schools at one time?