Phoenix City Council Votes to Bring Prayer Back After Effort to Stop Satanists Results in Silence

Phoenix Credit AZWatchDog-compressedPHOENIX, Ariz. — City council members in Phoenix, Arizona have voted to bring prayer back during public meetings after replacing invocations with a moment of silence in an effort to keep a Satanist group out of the mix.

As previously reported, the Satanic Temple had submitted a request to deliver the invocation at a Phoenix City Council meeting to ensure that “minority” voices are included. The city agreed that the group should be allowed to participate, and scheduled its inclusion on Feb. 17 as per the Satanic Temple’s request.

However, four city council members, Sal DiCiccio, Bill Gates, Jim Waring and Michael Nowakowski, soon sought to change city policy so that the invocation won’t be turned into a “circus” by atheist or Satanist groups.

In late January, DiCiccio and others moved to change the way that invocations are scheduled, so that city council members would be able to select speakers instead of permitting groups to call and select a date. However, City Attorney Brad Holm asserted that doing so would be unconstitutional and suggested instead proposing a moment of silence.

“[The] mayor and council cannot decide that this woman would not be allowed to offer her spoken prayer,” he stated, noting that the Satanic Temple had threatened to sue. “Our view as the city’s attorney’s office and my view personally as the city attorney is that we would be likely to lose that case.”

City council was split in its vote last month on replacing prayer with a moment of silence, but Mayor Greg Stanton sided with those who preferred silence out of a desire to avoid a legal battle, casting the deciding vote.

But on Wednesday, City Council voted 7-2 to a new proposal to bring back the prayers under the stipulation that invocations only be presented by police and fire chaplains. The idea had been submitted by Councilman Waring.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Approving public prayer at City Council meetings was a big win for Phoenix. It has been a tough fight to keep prayer at our meetings, and I am happy for all of our community,” DiCiccio said in a statement. “The Phoenix City Council reversed the Phoenix mayor and City Council’s previous decision to ban a 65-year tradition of prayer at our council meetings without notice to the public.”

Mayor Stanton and Council member Kate Gallego were the sole two votes against the proposal, as they opined that it still would not pass constitutional muster. But attorney Holm said he believed the move, as opposed to the invocation scheduling proposal, would withstand a legal challenge.

“The answer is it’s constitutional in accordance with a long line of cases, so the probabilities are that it would be upheld by a court,” he told reporters.

Holm must now craft an ordinance surrounding the matter, which will then be voted on during the March 23rd Phoenix City Council meeting.

The Satanic Temple has threatened to fight back over the issue, posting on March 2 prior to the vote, “Know this @MayorStanton: if the invocation forum is reopened, we are first on the schedule, or we’ll file suit for discrimination (and win).”

// ]]>

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Emmanuel

    Phoenix needed to go through hell to see that prayer is the only answer. Christ or nothing!

    • Carcosa

      this is a secular nation, you either allow all faith a place at the table or none

      • Amos Moses

        No evidence it was ever a secular nation.

        • Original Chum

          If we aren’t a secular nation what are we?

          • Amos Moses

            The founding fathers were not primaily christian, but they were not atheists either. They all believed in God and due to the number of christians who did live here at the beginning of the country, they at least paid lip service, as any politician does, to the people they were going to rule over.

            Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story –
            § 1871. The real object of the (1st) amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity (Atheism), by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.

            Justice David Josiah Brewer (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): “This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus … (recited) that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered’ …

            “The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 … and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided ‘that they be not against the true Christian faith’ … The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 … commenced the grant in these words: ‘… in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness …’ Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony … in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

            “The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith … a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia’ … The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ‘… And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union … there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God … to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess … of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.’

            “In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘… no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of … their religious profession and worship …’

            “Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’ … These declarations … reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

          • Original Chum

            Your quote from Justice Story is the only relevant quote here. How is the quote from Justice Brewer even relevant? Everything else you have listed is prior to the founding of our nation. And should the weight of one supreme court justice stating the U.S. as a Christian country count, than so should all the supreme court justices who have argued otherwise such as Hugo Black:

            “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.” (Everson V. Board of Education)

            And while the majority of the quotes you’ve listed have nothing to do with the U.S. after the ratification of the constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified unanimously by the senate, includes this line:

            Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

            Another useful supreme court case worth mentioning is Engel v. Vitale. This case made it illegal for public schools to promote or require prayer. Going very firmly against the idea that we are a Christian nation.

            Or perhaps Town of Greece v. Galloway, which allows invocations before meetings like those mentioned in the article above, as long as they allow invocations from everybody. Not just Christians.

            On top of all of this god, Jesus, and Christ aren’t even mentioned in the constitution. You may try to claim we are not a secular nation, but we are certainly not a Christian nation.

          • Amos Moses

            ” And should the weight of one supreme court justice stating the U.S. as a Christian country count,”

            Justice Brewer is relevant. It described the history of the people here at the beginning. What Black did……… not sure what you are talking about.

          • Original Chum

            Justice Brewer is referencing people who lived here before the country was even founded, it’s irrelevant.

          • Amos Moses

            No, they are the same people, just a generation or so removed. The nation was here as a people way before 1789.So quite relevant.

            It is discussing WHY they came here. Relevant.

          • Original Chum

            The laws of a prior government have no bearing on how our country runs today.

          • Amos Moses

            The “prior government” became the NEXT government. They did not disappear for your convenience. They did not disappear at all.

          • Original Chum

            The laws changed, and those prior laws are no longer enforceable.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry, the “The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among all thirteen original states in the United States of America that served as its first constitution. ”

            It was in place until the Constitution was ratified ten years later but it was for the most part the same document.

            “The Articles were created by delegates from the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a need to have “a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States.” After the war, nationalists, especially those who had been active in the Continental Army, complained that the Articles were too weak for an effective government. There was no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base. The absence of a tax base meant that there was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years except by requesting money from the states, which seldom arrived.

            In 1788, with the approval of Congress, the Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution and the new government began operations in 1789.”

            But the history and the people who began this new country came here and were here for the reasons and desires that Brewer pointed out. They did not come here to build a new “secular” nation and if you think so, then document it.

          • Amos Moses

            Never said it was a christian nation, Obviously, it is not. But that is not the point.

          • Original Chum

            Than what was your point? You only referenced pro christian ideologies.

          • Amos Moses

            So what? Actually i was recounting history, and if you see it as “pro-christian”….. then guess what…. the country is here due to pro-christian influences. Thank you for recognizing the origins of this country and the people who did it.

            If they were secular and a secular nation, then you would not have pointed out the “pro-christian” part of it.

          • Original Chum

            I didn’t point out any pro-christian aspects, unless you count the times where our government acted in a secular manner.

          • Amos Moses

            “You only referenced pro christian ideologies.”
            “I didn’t point out any pro-christian aspects,”

            Then why did you bring it up?

          • Original Chum

            You claim we’re not secular, and to prove it you only show references to the U.S. being a christian nation. I responded with examples which demonstrate we are not a Christian nation, and support secularism.

          • Amos Moses

            “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

            This is not only directly refuted by Story but:

            “that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.”

            And in fact EVERY one of the original states, as well as every state after added recognizes God in their state constitutions, and if what you say is true, why was this done, AFTER the establishment of what you say is “irrelevant”?:

            Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..

            Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

            Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

            Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

            California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
            grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

            Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

            Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy …

            Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty … establish this
            Constitution…

            Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

            Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance . establish this Constitution

            Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

            Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ..

            Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings … establish this Constitution

            Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

            Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

            Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

            Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … and imploring His aid and direction

            Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty…

            Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We…the people of Massachusetts,
            acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe…in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction …

            Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution

            Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

            Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

            Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..establish this Constitution ..

            Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

            Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution

            Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

            New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience .

            New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

            New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

            North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

            North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…

            Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
            Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ..

            Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty … establish this

            Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be securein the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

            Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

            South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution

            South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

            Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

            Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

            Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution .

            Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to … enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man …

            Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI … Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator . can be directed only by Reason … and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other…

            Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution .

            West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .

            Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

            Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution .

          • Elie Challita

            You’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting secularism again.
            Secularism is the understanding that no single religious doctrine can dominate the nation or its government. This applies equally to different religions as well as subsets of the same religion.
            Whether you’re comparing Southern Baptists to Catholics or Muslims, the argument, the secular position remains the same: No religious belief system should be allowed to impose its tenets on everyone else, and any laws that pass must have a non-religious justification.

          • Amos Moses

            “Secularism is the understanding that no single religious doctrine can dominate the nation or its government”

            Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution about that. The Constitution stops GOVERNMENT from doing certain things. It stops the people from doing almost nothing and certainly NOT what you are saying, such as:

            “No religious belief system should be allowed to impose its tenets on everyone else, and any laws that pass must have a non-religious justification.”

            In a free society, you have no immunity from the ideas and speech of others. Can the people bring their religion into government to make policy….absolutely. Can government enforce a religion on people….no…but the two things are not mutually exclusive.

          • Elie Challita

            Yes, the constitution stops the GOVERNMENT from imposing religious ideals on people. This include such things as enforcing prayer in schools, denying others basic rights due to your religious tenets, or legalizing criminal behavior as long as it stems from religious conviction.

            People can certainly bring their own religion into office, as it’s almost impossible to shed your previous biases and world views. However, there has to be some justification for your actions other than “God told me to do it”.

        • Carcosa

          expect for the Constitution and numerous court cases.

          • Amos Moses

            Expect EVERY state constitution mentions God…………….

          • Carcosa

            and? the federal Constitution trumps state

        • gogo0

          no evidence there is a god, but that doesnt stop most people

          • Amos Moses

            Do you have perfect knowledge of Every Thing?

          • gogo0

            no i dont, and neither does anyone else that i am aware of. thats why evidence is important

          • Amos Moses

            So then you cannot make the statement you just made with any reliability or veracity…………… But even if you had overwhelming evidence…. and you do……………. you would require yourself to deny it……. you would lie to yourself to make it fit.

            As you do now……………

          • gogo0

            how presumptuous

          • Amos Moses

            Do not worry, you hopefully will grow out of your presumptions.

            But yes, you are presumptuous to apply what applies to science, evidence, and then try to apply that to religion. Religion is not science. Although, God invented science.

            If you want to live by science alone, then you should consider the implications of that. Evolution does not recognize right and wrong, or even your rights. You only have the rights, under evolution, that a stronger person is willing to give you. If they want to make you their slave, for their own survival, then you have no complaint. If you are beaten out on the street or in your home, you have no complaint, that is evolution.

            So if that is the standard you want to live under, you should have no complaints whatsoever if you are taken advantage of as there are no standards of right and wrong, there is no mercy, there is survival, and it may not be yours.

            You should not be on any forums arguing about how unfair things are for this group or that group, evolution does not recognize if it is “fair” or not. Evolution does not care.

            The only “presumption” is that you are either predator or prey. Again, if that is the standard you want to apply to your life…………….have fun with that. But do not come to a christian site and complain about how we treat you, that is the standard you have set for yourself. That is what you think you want. You should have no objection to homosexuals being treated in a way you find objectionable, or if someone is “bullied”. That is evolution. In fact, you cannot even HONESTLY complain about any “hypocrisy” you may perceive as evolution does not care if a person does that.

          • gogo0

            what? are you drunk, or did afchief hack your account?
            believe it or not, I can want people to have happy lives and not be beaten in the street without having to believe women came from the rib bone of a guy made of dust.

          • Amos Moses

            Sure, you do, but you have no right to claim it is right or wrong as it is not part of evolution.

            Your system, your standard, what you have chosen to live under. Evolution does not recognize anything that you mention.Those are the consequences of that system. Brutality and survival and that includes being beaten for whatever another has decided you have that they want, there is no right or wrong, you have NO RIGHTS under that system.

            Again,,,, have fun living in that.

            “did afchief hack your account?:”

            The truth is not respecter of person. If we both speak the truth, then i guess that is too bad, for you.

          • gogo0

            asking if you were hacked by afchief or drunk was regarding the utter stupidity of your argument, not because of anything you claim to be true. the fact is that I nor anyone else on this board has claimed that we live our lives by science as blindly as christians do the bible. that mess of a strawman you crafted is a disgrace compared to your usual posting quality.

          • Amos Moses

            “the fact is that I nor anyone else on this board has claimed that we live our lives by science as blindly as christians do the bible. ”

            Do i follow the truth blindly, Yes, as it is the truth. But you follow the tenets of evolution, correct? No, that is the standard you have chosen to live by, blindly or not. The only “strawman” is that you think you have ANY MORAL AUTHORITY under evolution.

            You do not and if you are treated badly, you have NO COMPLAINT.

          • gogo0

            you keep inventing arguments that i am not making. i have never said that evolution has any kind of moral code associated with it, let alone an authoritative one.

            how about you read before you post

          • Amos Moses

            “you keep inventing arguments that i am not making. i have never said that evolution has any kind of moral code associated with it, let alone an authoritative one.”

            how would you feel about separate seating menus and areas for blacks in restaurants? people shouldn’t be *forced* to serve blacks the same as whites, right?

            “thats catchy, but it doesnt address how homosexuals will eliminate heterosexual HIV transmission”

            “if they dont want to put a same-sex wedding topper on a cake, they simply dont stock them. there is no law compelling them to make a flagrantly gay cake for anyone same as there isnt a law compelling a tshirt maker to print obscene phrases on a shirt. if a customer asks for a standard product that is stocked or made to order for others to purchase, then the customer cannot be turned away because they are gay, or black, or too short, or a christian.”

            “and regarding the cake, you seem to be in the minority here that feels a cake has no intrinsic policical or social message attached to it. if supporting gay marriage is your concern, then find the earlier post detailing all of the other things you ought to also rally agains (second weddings, divorce, etc). those people also require their ‘sins’ to be held against them”

            All of the above statements are yours, are they not? You have a history of claiming support of people you seem to think have been “wronged”….. But you also believe in evolution……… You HAVE NO CLAIM to be upset under that paradigm of “evolution”.

            It is not part of “evolution” and no one who believes in “evolution” has any claim to the concepts of right, wrong, rights nor any basis to complain how homosexuals or any other group is treated.

          • gogo0

            to clear up your severe confusion, my support of others is based on my desire to be a good person, not evolution (which still wasnt stated in any of my quotes you dug up).

          • Amos Moses

            “my desire to be a good person, not evolution”

            Sorry, there is no concept of “good” in evolution……………………Fail! You have no claim on that concept, you do not get to use that.

          • gogo0

            gotta admit i was slow to pick up on the fact that youre trolling me. you win

          • Amos Moses

            Not trolling you, you are making moral judgments. Morality is not part of evolution, which you clearly support. You have no claim to morality or moral judgments if you think evolution is true.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Morality is not part of evolution? Well, you’re right. But that’s like saying morality is not part of gravity, or that morality is not part of general relativity. It’s a nonsensical statement, because people who do recognize that evolution is true (which includes people of quite a few religions, after all) don’t look to evolution for morality in the first place.

            I think what it really comes down to is, you’re using the word ‘evolution’ to mean something that most of the rest of us don’t. Something along the lines of ‘a strong-atheist, naturalistic, materialistic worldview’ is what you’re talking about.

          • Amos Moses

            Well if you claim “evolution” then morality has to come from “evolution” and you have no proof, you have no evidence.Evolution claims to be of science, science is based on evidence, where is the evidence that it came from “evolution”? It does not exist.

            So, if that is the reality you claim, then you have no claim on morality or any objection as to how others are treated as it does not fall under that paradigm. You have effectively cut yourself off from it. Gravity, cute, but a red herring and has NOTHING to do with “evolution”. Nice try………..

            “I think what it really comes down to is, you’re using the word ‘evolution’ to mean something that most of the rest of us don’t.”

            Yes, because those who follow “evolution” are refusing to live under that paradigm and the full implications of what it is. They want to ignore that part, morality, because it is inconvenient. Sorry, if you want your theory, then explain where it came from, or drop your arguments trying to appeal to morality. You have no argument on moral grounds if you follow “evolution”. There is none.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, morality doesn’t have to come from evolution. That makes no sense. Whether you think it’s right or you don’t, it’s a scientific theory, that, like you said, doesn’t say anything about morality. Why would it? Why would any scientific theory (like evolution, or gravity – which is why I mentioned it, not because it is somehow related to evolution, just because it is another scientific theory) be looked to for answers to questions about morality? What moral implications does evolution carry with it? Remember, if you’re going to talk about evolution, talk about EVOLUTION. Not, like I said, a strong-atheist/naturalistic worldview. The two are NOT the same things. Evolution – evolution just by itself – does not say anything about morality, or the origin of life, or where or how or why or when the universe was created. It doesn’t make any implications about those things, other than that the Biblical accounts of creation are not to be taken literally, perhaps. (There are other reasons for that besides evolution, anyway!)

            Or are you saying that just because I believe in a theory that you claim has no proof, I have no “claim on morality”? (There is proof, but I’m not even going to go into that, you wouldn’t believe anything I say anyway) You know……I really, really try not to put down religion in general, or any particular religion…..but you’re almost making it too easy for me, if that’s where you were going with that…

          • Amos Moses

            So then you have to explain where it came from………………..

            “Remember, if you’re going to talk about evolution, talk about EVOLUTION.”

            And if you are going to talk about morality, then stop claiming evolution as it does not fall under that paradigm, and stop complaining about how others are treated, there is nothing in “evolution” to that has anything to do with morality.

            Here is the thing, we are not here talking about evolution as a viable idea. “Evolutionists” are and at the same time they are here trying to talk about morality…. So you should really be taking you own advice. “Evolutionist” have no claim to morality until they can explain where it came from. Since they can’t, they have no evidence under the science paradigm, they are cut off from it.

            “Or are you saying that just because I believe in a theory that you claim has no proof, I have no “claim on morality”?”

            No, you have no claim to morality because you cannot provide any evidence of morality under “evolution”? You are cut off from it. You have no complaint under “evolution” as to how people are treated, they are, under “evolution”, being treated as if they were under “evolution”, which is as predator or prey, according to “evolutionists”. How else are they to be treated under the “evolution” paradigm if not as prey or predator. Under that paradigm, that is all they are………………….. until “evolutionists” can prove otherwise.

            They have no complaint as to how people are treated, mass-murderers are not bad or evil as they are just acting as the predator……………no morality…. and “evolutionists” have no standing to claim otherwise.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Again, I agree with you, in that evolution has nothing to do with morality. I don’t have to demonstrate how evolution leads to morality, to have morality, though. Where do you get this sort of idea from, that evolution says every person, every animal, is either prey or predator, and that’s just all there is to it? If you think that’s what “survival of the fittest” means in the context of evolution, you’re way off. Common misconception, though.

            Oh, I think I get it, now, though….you’re not really talking about evolution, you’re talking about “evolutionISM.” ….which these days is just really a term used by people that try to make evolution into some sort of religion.

          • Amos Moses

            “I don’t have to demonstrate how evolution leads to morality, to have morality, though. ”

            No, if you believe in “evolution” then you have no morality to speak of, So in order to have it, then show from where it came from. “Evolutionists” deny God, Christ and the bible. Fine, their prerogative. But they then try to claim morality. “Evolutionists” won’t explain it…. and it does not exists under that paradigm.

            So from where did it come? They deny from where it came…. so the only explanation we are left with in their paradigm, is that it “evolved” as they have no other answer. And there is no evidence. So they are not entitled to use it as a weapon against others and they have no complaint if others are treated poorly as that would fit their paradigm. Until they can tell us where it came from, then they have no complaint. They are cut off from it.

            No, if you want to claim that life is an accident, that “evolution” is responsible for life here……….. then live with that and quit trying to pontificate morality to others when you have no claim to it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re still getting it wrong, though. Evolution (the actual thing that evolution actually means, not the definition you’re using!) doesn’t say a damned thing about whether “life is an accident” or not. It doesn’t say anything about the ORIGIN of life. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

            I just read this a little while ago, sounds like a good explanation for all this to me: (copied from good ol’ RationalWiki, by the way, I’m just sure you love that site, right?)

            “1. Evolution is not a religion and does not say anything about any morality. Evolution is descriptive (talking about what is), not prescriptive (talking about what should be). Almost all moralities are prescriptive. Evolution can be immoral only if all attempts to describe the universe are immoral.

            2. Morality derived from evolution would have to recognize the
            fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting,
            cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness.[3]
            The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as
            humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. If such
            principles are immoral, then so are the vast majority of moralities.”

          • Amos Moses

            “You’re still getting it wrong, though.”

            Yes, you are. If you cannot tell us where morality comes from, then you have no claim on it. You are cut off from it.

            “Evolution is not a religion and does not say anything about any morality. ”

            Half right, the way it is presented and its proofs, it is religion, and unprovable, and therefore a faith based belief system….. and therefore, you have no claim to morality and how people are treated if that is your paradigm.

    • Paige Turner

      Nothing

      • Emmanuel

        Phoenix is going with Christ.

        • Carcosa

          Phoenix is spitting on the Constitution, you either allow all faiths in or none.

          • Paige Turner

            Freedom of
            and
            Freedom from religion.

          • Carcosa

            exactly.

          • Amos Moses

            Diametrically opposed…………..

          • Carcosa

            only in the eyes of idiots.

          • Amos Moses

            Well, that wins all arguments…………not.

          • Carcosa

            it does.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah, automatic gainsaying…………LOL!

            That is not a rational thought, it is just contradiction………..

            (Stop saying what i’m saying) Oh, and (neener, neener, neener).

          • Carcosa

            just shut up

          • 1no Yamanaka

            Flagged.
            You need to act like an adult.

          • Carcosa

            shut up and piss off you pathetic impostor

          • Paige Turner

            You cannot have one without the other in a secular nation such as the USA. By all means beleive in what ever you want, however you cannot impose that on other people – that is freedom from religion.

            You cannot force your religion on people who don’t want it or don’t believe in it. The majority does not get to impose its will on the minority just because there are more of them which is why there are laws to protect minorities.

          • Amos Moses

            “You cannot have one without the other in a secular nation such as the USA. By all means beleive in what ever you want, however you cannot impose that on other people – that is freedom from religion.”

            There is no right to be free of the thoughts and speech of others. So it is diametrically opposed. And there is no evidence this is a secular society.

            Yes, you cannot have freedom and then demand that others are not free to also exercise their freedom. You are not free from their freedom. Grow up. The first amendment was not designed to protect your fragile feelings. It was designed to harbor free thought. You have two choices if you do not like something you hear. 1.) Ignore it. 2.) Say something back. If you are unable to do either of those things, it makes you a coward. Being “offended” is not a valid third option.

            That is not freedom, that is the tyranny of the minority…………….

          • Paige Turner

            Freedom of religion
            is Freedom from religion.

            You have freedom of religion
            And I have freedom from religion

            You cannot impose your religious doctrine on others. Its just that simple. Just like I cant impose on you my lack of religion.

            Believe in whatever bronze age nonsense you want just keep it to yourself and don’t impose it on those that aren’t interested in fairy tales.

          • Amos Moses

            “Freedom of religion is Freedom from religion.”

            The constitution does not say that in any way shape or form and you know it.

            The first amendment was not designed to protect your fragile feelings. It was designed to harbor free thought. You have two choices if you do not like something you hear. 1.) Ignore it. 2.) Say something back. If you are unable to do either of those things, it makes you a coward. Being “offended” is not a valid third option.

            Do you and Judy Canova hang out?

          • Paige Turner

            Ad hominem shows that you’ve lost the argument.

            You cannot force your religion on people, try as you do. Thats freedom from religion which is how we also get freedom of religion. I cannot put it any more simply than that.

            If we didn’t have freedom from religion then there could be an official state religion and people could be forced to attend church which is illegal. Thats the freedom from religion part again.

          • Amos Moses

            I made no personal attack on you, that is ad hominem, but show me where i did that.

            No one is forcing anything on you, but in fact you are trying to force your LACK of religion on everyone….. you have no freedom FROM religion. You have no freedom from the ideas of others. You can disagree,,,,,,,,,i do not care,,,,, but you CANNOT stop anyone from the expression of ideas with which YOU disagree. You do not have that freedom.

          • Paige Turner

            That is the most tortured argument that I have ever read. It is nonsense.

            A lack of religion is not being forced on you. My lack of religious faith in no way impacts your held religious beliefs. Much like same sex marriage doesn’t impact opposite sex marriage. You just cant get away with bigotry and hatred for those with different views and lifestyles anymore and you don’t like it.

            Please demonstrate how my lack of faith negatively impacts you.

          • Amos Moses

            You have no freedom from the ideas of others, religious or otherwise. You have no right to demand that others be silent about their beliefs.

          • Paige Turner

            Talk about it as much as you want. Just don’t impose it on the rest of us and don’t bring it to work. Easy.
            You’ve still not explained how my lack of religion negatively impacts your faith. What if I was Jewish? Hindu? How does this impact you?

          • Amos Moses

            “Just don’t impose it on the rest of us and don’t bring it to work. Easy.”

            Sorry, you live in ‘Merica, and it can be brought WHEREVER we want to bring it, your discomfort to it is not a matter for you to exercise the control of others thoughts and speech.

          • Paige Turner

            Third Repeat:

            Please explain how my lack of religion negatively impacts your faith? Or someones Judaism? Hinduism?

          • Amos Moses

            “Please explain how my lack of religion negatively impacts your faith? Or someones Judaism? Hinduism?”

            Please explain how my free speech rights on my beliefs negatively impacts your lack faith?

          • Paige Turner

            Answer: After 3 requests you cannot explain how my lack of religion negatively impacts your faith ergo my lack of religion impacts you in no way.

            Freedom from religion.

          • Amos Moses

            “After 3 requests you cannot explain how my lack of religion negatively impacts your faith ergo my lack of religion impacts you in no way.”

            Because you are not trying to protect your freedom, you are trying to suppress the freedoms of others, and you have no right to freedom of others speech, as i have explained numerous times.

          • Paige Turner

            Go ahead and impose your religion on others and see how far you get. Im sure there are a lot of Jews, Hindus and Atheists who will be thrilled to tell you what you can do with it. Evangelising just gets people off side anyway so you go right ahead.

            Just Keep it out of the public square, schools and government and to yourself. It has no place outside of your church and your own family/friends/co workers.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    This compromise shouldn’t pass constitutional muster either. State actors can’t target specific religious groups for punishment by passing neutral-sounding legislation. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah.

    The city is basically admitting here that they want only Christian invocations, but since they can’t openly legislate that, they passed a weasel law that has that effect without saying it outright.

    • bowie1

      Would it have been illegal in 1776?

      • Carcosa

        so would a lot of things that are protected by the Constitution

      • Cady555

        The Constitution was ratified in 1789.

        The 14th Amendment was ratified after the civil war.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Somebody seriously downvoted you for this? For stating basic facts?

          • Brad F

            Here’s a handkerchief

          • Paige Turner

            I can only imagine what a soiled handkerchief from you would contain.

        • bowie1

          Thanks for the history lesson. Was prayer legal at city hall then – any city hall?

          • Original Chum

            So recent developments don’t matter? We should stick to how things were in 1776?

          • bowie1

            What are these recent developments? Did they change the constitution to outlaw prayer? Perhaps you have a link?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, but no one is alleging that prayer is outlawed. What I’m saying is, a city cannot pass a law that surreptitiously punishes a certain religious group.

          • Original Chum

            I’m just going to reference Ambulance Chaser’s comment, and recommend you read the judgement in Town of Greece v. Galloway.

          • Cady555

            I doubt anyone intended to comply with the Constitution 13 years before the Constitution was written, but you never know. ..

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Irrelevant.

        • bowie1

          How so? It is a constitutional issue is it not?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, so why should I care what was legal in 1776?

  • Lexical Cannibal

    This will last about as long as it takes to cross a judge’s desk. You cannot keep the religious groups you don’t like out and let the others in, and that is pretty clearly what this solution seeks to do. No matter how they’re selected, if TST applies and is rejected, they go to court and they almost certainly win.

    It’s really simple, guys. All religions and beliefs are treated equally under the law. You can either accept them all, or accept none. There’s not much room for inbetween.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Funny how objectionable it is when a person who doesn’t share your faith wishes to provide an invocation. Now think about how all the non-Christians feel when you force them to listen to you providing an invocation.

    • AndrewDowling

      🙁

    • Cady555

      That would require empathy.

      They are upset if they are expected to listen politely to an invocation from a different religious tradition even once. Yet week after week, month after month, year after year they have no qualms expecting non christians to sit through christian prayers.

      Jesus taught treat others as you would want to be treated. I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some christians to do this.

  • gizmo23

    The only reason to have these public prayer spectacles is to intimidate non Christians.

    • Amos Moses

      If “non-christians” are “intimidated” that is their problem. They need to grow up. There are free speech zones in this country. It starts on the east coast at the Atlantic Ocean and extends to the west coast and the Pacific Ocean (including Hawaii and Alaska).

      Your inability to want to hear what others say is not their duty to SHUT UP about it. “Trigger warning and micro-aggressions” are not included in the 1st amendment.

      • gizmo23

        Fine we should only have Mormon and Catholic prayers.
        You just don’t get it government covers all people not just Christians

        • Amos Moses

          You don’t get it. Your intimidation by anothers’ speech is YOUR problem, not the person doing the speaking. Grow up.

          • gizmo23

            So an ISIS member praying for death to Christians would be OK

          • Amos Moses

            And how am i to stop him from prayer? i might try to stop him from making it real,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, The preferred option would be for him to pray (and prey) in his own country.

            Christians do not fear death, they do not fear persecution, they do not look forward to it, but……………

          • gizmo23

            All faiths are equal under the constitution. I’m sure many would object to Muslims saying the opening prayer

          • Amos Moses

            “All faiths are equal under the constitution.”

            Sorry, it does not say that. But even if it did, does not make the statement true. It says that slaves should be counted as 3/5ths of a human being for the purpose of population and apportionment. That was never right and just because the constitution and a few judges say it is so, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

          • gizmo23

            You are correct but that is the system we have

          • Amos Moses

            So we can go back to slavery and if a few judges say, “good to go” then you are good with it because…………”that is the system we have”

            good to know…………

          • Jalapeno

            Does that mean that you think that some religions get special rights that don’t apply to the others?

            That’s kind of the attitude I’m reading from you, but I just wanted to clarify.

          • Amos Moses

            “Does that mean that you think that some religions get special rights that don’t apply to the others?”

            i do not know what you are talking about.

          • Jalapeno

            The way you were talking, discussing how the constitution does not mean that we need to treat all religions the same, implies that you do not think that they should.

          • Amos Moses

            Government has no control over religion. They are prohibited from having any say in what religion or sect of religion is correct. They cannot endorse or prohibit it.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          • gizmo23

            We changed the constitution(system) to stop that. Congress has the power to do that

          • Amos Moses

            And so it can be CHANGED BACK. Congress has the power to do that…………….

          • gizmo23

            That is the system we have

    • bowie1

      It has more to do with giving God thanks for guiding them along the way. But perhaps you don’t want to be grateful.

      • gizmo23

        What is stopping anyone from doing that?

  • Josey

    I don’t think they should stop praying just because satanist want to give an invocation. God our Creator is greater than all, to the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ is Lord and you better believe the devils in these satanist will flee if born again Christians stand firmly in the boldness that is given to us and allow the fire of God in their bones to rise as they give their prayer to the Almighty Father in the Power and authority of His Holy Spirit. Their little invocation won’t do anything against God’s people and will be defeated by those standing in the Power of the Holy Spirit God has given us who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray for their boldness and courage and for the fire of God in the one’s praying. God gives His own victory over all the work of the enemy, satan is a defeated foe, Jesus defeated Him and has overcome the world and we as His children should know we are not alone just as the son’s of God that were thrown into a fiery furnace, the Mighty Son of the Living God was in the furnace with them and not a hair of their head was singed, and the ropes that bound them were burned off, even the King that put them in there said, “didn’t we send 3 in and I see 4 and that one is the Son of God, Jesus. We need to know wherever we are, no matter the evil or circumstances going on in this wicked generation that Jesus is right there with us. Elijah, God’s prophet didn’t shy away from the 400 evil prophets of baal, satan and God showed His mighty power through the prayers of Elijah and destroyed them all, we children of God have been given the same Spirit that was working through Elijah then. Rise up Children of God, have faith in God and do not fear the works of evil doers, God laughs at their plans. Psalm 37 Don’t fear their invocation, it is nothing, Christ defeats satan and we as His ppl have Jesus authority to rebuke and send those devils fleeing at the Name of Jesus, do not fear!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      So, this is basically the long way of saying you support an open, inclusive invocation that any faith is allowed to indulge in?

      • Josey

        If they are determined to give their wimpy invocation, I am saying that the prayers of the Saints of God will cause the one in them to flee for the Name of Jesus is greater and their knees will bow to His Name, they will flee and I’m saying that as Children of God not to fear these devils by not praying at all but let him or her who prays pray in Faith given by the Spirit of God knowing we have been given authority over these devils, if they can give their invocation at all after the one God uses to show How He is God and will not be mocked by devils but if God allows an invocation to be given, it will fall to the ground, be nothing, mean nothing when Jesus is involved for Christ’s is Lord over these devils and He will show His power. These disillusioned souls that say they serve satan will see the Power of Christ when we stand up in faith and boldness of the Holy Spirit of God in which Jesus is Lord over all…Stand up people of God, you have the Spirit of God within you and Christ’s authority. Glory to God!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’d there some reason you can’t respond to a simple question with a simple answer?

          • Josey

            I gave an answer, you have a problem with the answer, too bad for you for I suppose some just are too simple minded to understand the answer I gave, that’s your problem.

  • Reason2012

    “[The] mayor and council cannot decide that this woman would not be allowed to offer her spoken prayer,”

    She’s not ‘praying’ to anyone – she doesn’t believe in anything. She is just hatefully mocking what Christians believe by pretending to honor the evil part of Christianity. It can be denied on that grounds alone that it’s not a religion and there’s no ‘deity’ they’re sincerely praying to.

    • Jalapeno

      So..who should decide what religions deserve protection and which don’t?

      Remember, for legal purposes, even atheism is a religion.

      • Reason2012

        Hatefully mocking what Christians believe by claiming to worship satan is not a religion.

        • Jalapeno

          Who decides what’s legally considered a religion or not?

          • Reason2012

            A religion: a deity and you sincerely think you’re praying to said deity (hence prayer).
            Satanists: atheists who do not believe in any deity but they take part of Christianity to hatefully mock it.

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not the legal definition.