First Amendment vs First Amendment?

A small town in California is facing a battle pitting one First Amendment right against the other. At issue is the town council of Lancaster's practice of opening the meeting with a Christian "invocation" prompting one side to argue for a separation of church and state, while the other side cites freedom of speech. In my opinion, I see the prayers as a violation of the separation clause as the council is meeting in an official capacity and ALL religion should be left at the door, but I know that others may see this from a different angle. I just wondered which right trumps the other and how we figure that out.

www.dailynews.com...

Just because were Christians does not mean we are not guaranteed the same rights of any other group. Why is it everyone screams when Christians want to pray in a public setting but it is perfectly fine for us to get bashed by every other group?

If there are Christian members then they have every right to pray at the meetings. No one forces the members that do not want to. So what is the problem?

Here is your answer from the Supreme Court:

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

www.infidels.org...

Well that would be all well and dandy, if the separation of church and state actually appeared in the US Constitution. Which if you look and read the whole document, there is no such clause as separation of church and state.

But if you ask me, it all depends upon the situation. I don't think prayers or any support of a religion should take place when it comes to government business, as the government should remain neutral and enforce the right to freedom of religion.

Separation of church and state in the United States

The phrase "separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to an 1 January 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State".

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." [2] However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.

en.wikipedia.org...

If the christians wouldn't mind an islamic prayer also... we originally came to america for freedom of religion, not to have an american christian denomination.

Do unto others... Right?

reply to post by Campy61


I don't have a problem if you pray in public as long as you are not doing your job as a government official expecting me to participate which, when you open a town meeting with a prayer, you are. I must be at that meeting to conduct business and participate in my government and by praying there, you are in effect, forcing me to pray with you. It also implies that Christianity is the religion favored by the government when they are specifically prohibited from doing that.

Your faith is a personal matter and it should be kept out of public business and left in church where it belongs.