A Question of Church and State

Freedom From Religion Foundation takes issue with Mayor's Prayer Breakfast

6/7/12

By Marc Garman

In a May 7 letter just received by VIB, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (www.ffrf.org) strongly condemns Mayor Osby Davis' annual “Mayor's Prayer Breakfast” as a violation of principles of separation of church and state. The letter, by FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor refers to the “anointing” of public officials, specifically Vallejo Schools Superintendent Ramona Bishop and suggests that Mayor Osby Davis should, “celebrate our freedom of conscience and the separation between religion and government.”

According to the letter, concerned citizens brought the prayer breakfast to the attention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Read the full letter HERE

Comments

Add New Search RSS

tramky   |June.10.2012 This is all concocted lie by a gaggle of crackpots. Freedom from religion?!! There is nothing constitutional about that. Accounting for the somewhat unusual syntax, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution includes this statement: Congress shall make now law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Anyone who depends on the Constitution as providing freedom from religion is either a fool or a liar. In either case, it is not admirable and certainly is not true. And, of course, the Constitution makes no restrictions whatsoever on the states or any other level of government that may be devised. The fact that this is in the FIRST clause of the FIRST Amendment to the Constition--the FIRST of the Bill of RIGHTS, is not coincidental or some historical accident. What this gaggle is really about is fantasy, wishful thinking, and massive quantities of lies. Next.

Salty Dog   |June.10.2012 As an Egyptian Baptist, I would be comfortable with everyone enjoining with me in inner cleanliness. Probably would lead to a purer water source for our daily ablution of drinking at 9 pm.( sometimes I add a little Rye, though). Canadian Rye.

John   |June.10.2012 I'm sorry I missed the Mayors Prayer Breakfast. Did he pray for gays? Or, pray for those sick and dying and using medical marijuana? Our illustrious mayor who has made his opinions known that gays are sinners and that marijuana is an illegal drug that does not belong in "his" city. All based on his "religious" morality. Religion does NOT belong in government and government does NOT belong in our churches. Constitutional scholars have made that point for over two hundred years and the supreme court has affirmed it with their judicial rulings. Yet, just like those Tea Party Birthers, we still have those who refuse to accept that fact. What are these people afraid of? Are you willing to accept religion in government and by doing so accept that sometime in the future the possability would exist that our Constitutional Republic could become a theodemocracy, or a ecclesiocracy? Perhaps you'd prefer Jewish rule? Or, Mormon? Maybe we could get a group like the Davidians to take control of our lives through our new "government" or ... maybe Muslims?

Not as informed as you believe   |June.08.2012 Agreed SD, Those comments were directed to the comments before yours. We are on the same page here.

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 Exactly the point I was making. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough for you. No what if about it. No grasping necessary. You can have a Christian country and still have a secular state. There is a place for religion and it starts and ends with the individual. Everything else is people control. But there is no place for religion in the daily governance of a country....at least not a country that proclaims itself to be a modern and secular and largely depends on bureaucracy to function.

Not as informed as you believe   |June.08.2012 Dr. King wasn't a government official and the Lincoln Memorial is not a governmental office. "God's guidance?" I think you're reaching. Try to stick to the issue at hand rather than grasping at "what ifs"

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 I believe one can validly differentiate between a one off event or extraordinary event and the day to day activities of governance. King and the Rabbi were free to March wherever they chose( with permits, of course) and pray to whoever they wanted. Roosevelt was addressing a largely Christian nation at an extraordinary time when there was a deep sense of national danger and a need for rallying. Religion is good at rallying. But ,infused into governance on a regular basis and with values specific to a narrow congregation? I think not. Not a good idea. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

informed   |June.08.2012 Well I guess the FFRF would have objected to MLK and the March on Washington using the Lincoln Memorial. As I recall Dr. King and a rabbi asking for God's blessings. Or FDR in the Oval Office on announcing the D-Day invasion and asking Gods guidance.

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 As an Egyptian Baptist, I believe in inner cleanliness....but I would not insist everyone drink a glass of water at 9 pm each day (but I might, given the power, give my workers time off for the practice and the observance of my peculiar brand of morality).

Religous but not fanatic   |June.08.2012 My religion has no "annointing" rituals. This seems like a cultish behavior that's only part of fringe religous groups.

Anonymous   |June.08.2012 To me the problem is not having a "prayer breakfast" if it was truly inclusive. The National Day of Prayer is an event which does not profess to be about any one deity or any single religion. Osby Davis and The Vallejo Faith Organization only include Christians, and not just any Christians, only those who profess to exhort their mission to unify all businesses, organizations and government institutions, under their mantle of extremist fundamentalism. Their stated goal on their web page is to bring "biblical morality" to all. There are no Jews invited, no Muslims, no Christians who profess anything other than the dogma which they ascribe to based on their narrow interpretation of the bible. If Davis or the VFO were trying to unify, they would make room for divergent thinking, but they are not only saying they don't believe in divergence of religious thought, they maintain their right to use their connections to a leader to push their agenda within the city. When they say "City of God", it is only their God, and their beliefs, no one else's. The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of an accepted religion as well as the preference of one religion over another. To me, this is what has been violated.

Oh My   |June.08.2012 Interesting. Anyone who has to write a letter three pages in length has lost whoever is reading it. I don't agree with most of what the Mayor has to say/do but his participation as Mayor in a prayer breakfast is not on my list of matters of discontent.

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 Well, unfortunatley, there are extremists behind every dogma, so I get what you are saying and agree. But, I do believe that it was a wise doctrine...or development.....or convention...to separate and keep separated the men of faith and the men of reason in the wordly business of democratic nation building. IMO.

Which Is It?   |June.08.2012 Freedom From Religion? Or Freedom Of Religion? This group touts it's 18,000 members. Unimpressive, to say the least. Whoop de do. Technically, they are correct. Our Mayor should not, in any official capacity, either in his personage, or use of publicly funded facilities, endorse religion. That being said, one has to ask what the true end goals of organizations such are this are. When it gets to removing crosses from cemetery's, taking the word "God" or "In God We Trust" off of money, or removing the words "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance, a normal person just has to think that it's gone too far, taking things to intolerant extremes. These folks end up like Michael Newdow, of Sacramento, a mean-spirited person if there ever was one. His blind dedication along these lines approaches obsession, nearing madness. Really. On the other side, note that the "Christian Right", despite the moral high ground they foolishly wish, at times, to occupy, are the true friends of Israel and the Jews; while the liberal left just breathes anti-sematatism and anti-Zionist rhetoric. Check out any college campus these days, a Pro-Isreal or Pro-Jewish speaker can't even address students without a chance of disturbance, but a leftist who's merely "supporting freedom" for the Palestinians is welcomed warmly. There is NO tolerance from the left for the Jewish people. I guess they missed that whole WWII thing. American leftists align themselves, willingly or not, with the equally intolerant Muslim fringe, who's stated goal is the elimination of Judaism and the State of israel itself. Lastly, it's appropriate to note that the most vehement insistence on "Freedom From Religion" emanates NOT from other sects or religions, but from atheists or non-believers themselves. They're the ones howling and complaining the most. At least here in the United States, while Baptists don't hang with Catholics, and Methodists don't break bread with Muslims, and Hindus don't party with Buddhists, they pretty much live and let live, agreeing to get along. (That's here in the US, obviously not so much elsewhere, where wars a plenty are started over religion) The ACLU has often led in this effort, wasting enormous time and effort going after municipalities and schools over crosses, Christmas displays, ten commandments plaques, and the like. Any good work the ACLU does is overshadowed by this nutty fervor. It's like their cure is worse than our disease. The most recent example was Travis AFB, which got lambasted over a manger scene portraying Christmas at the front gate. Just like here, letters expressing outrage and upset. Can't non-believers just drive by and get over it? Why does the profession of faith exasperate some so? While I disagree with the Mayor on much, he's not trying to drive a wedge between folks. In his own, perhaps clumsy way, trying to unite people. Should he do it on public property? No. Should he do it while cloaking himself as "Mayor"? No. But in a world where one has to pick their fights, spending time where it's really going to do some good, this hardly seems like the way to go.

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 Quite right, "Get a Life", the Constitution does not make mention of the separation of church and state, but one of your founding heroes (Thomas Jefferson) had more than a little window dressing in mind when he suggested that the state was not to interfere with religion and, conversely, religion was not to interfere with the state, thus building a wall between the two. Smart man, wise thought. On another level, the infusion of religion and its values( both good and perhaps not so good) into local, in-your-face civic politics is somewhat different than a national leader and national government representatives espousing the notion of praying to a God. Blend all you want, Mr Obama....but don't expect to erase the line between the role of religion, a personal matter, and the secular role of governance. Moreover, if blending his faith with his politics has produced his current fiscal policies, I have a modest suggestion- stop it.

Get a Life   |June.08.2012 Taking into consideration that the (Presidential) National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by Congress and that since its inceptions every President has attended and addressed the participants, I consider this particular grievience against an official of my town window dressing. Since I am not a scholar of the Constitution I would like to point out that nothing in the original Constitution points to seperation of State and Church. Not until later times when Supreme Court Justices seized the opportunity to INTERPRET the Constitution authoratively we see a change. Specifically Amendment I (the first of 10 Amendments) ratified on December 15, 1791 states: *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.* I also would like to respectfully point to the last National Prayer Breakfast held in February 2012 and the comments made by the present leader of our country: *Blending politics and religion, President Barack Obama said his Christian faith is a driving force behind his economic policies, from Wall Street reform to his calls for the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Obama's remarks Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast were his most explicit account of how his personal religious beliefs factor into his decision-making on the nation's pressing problems. Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much as role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.* Since the Vallejo Mayor's Breakfast demands such drastic actions as to involve out-of-State help, I wonder what actions would be appropriate on the National stage?

N. On   |June.08.2012 Frankly, I don't think they're going to make much headway while this event continues to go on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast

Anonymous   |June.08.2012 David Crumrine rocks!

Jim Davis   |June.08.2012 Beating a dead horse? Read this organization's monthly newsletter and you will see that the horse is alive and well. Every month FFRF has to write letters to governments reminding them the ten commandments is not appropriate in city hall and the baby Jesus in the manger does not belong on town square. One would think that people in California would be hip to this. But we have a mayor who is clueless. A prayer breakfast! Osby is a nut, an embarrassment, and a lawyer wholly unfamiliar with the law. Thanks, Marc. Love, Jim

Salty Dog   |June.08.2012 Yeah...stale issue...like discussing abortion or capital punishment except....except... when your so called leadership drags God into the civic equation and colors decisions via nonsecular dogma. Want to believe in Gods and immaculate conception and rising from the dead? Be my guest and good look with all the other fairy tales that go along with it. But it just ain't American to foist it upon non believer's or even not sure believers. I got enough people trying to control my life without having some God's representative on this mortal coil trying to also dictate how I live my live. Where is Christopher Hitchins when you need him. Certainly not at the right hand of God, nor burning in some sort of hell. Oh well, now that we have an annointed Superintendent of schools, I am sure the districttruancy and assault rates will be down and the SAT scores up. Now that would be a miracle.

One thing in common   |June.08.2012 "Concerned Citizens" David Crumrine. He ain't right for Vallejo.

One thing in common   |June.08.2012 VIB and FFRF are both atheist organisations, beating to death a stale old issue.

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."