ok, working out my statement on prayer at govt meetings.

[mopinko]

first, thanks to all who shared their thoughts in this thread-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/123057512

since this is such a sticky thing, i really appreciate feedback from folks w different views on this.
tempted as i am to just say- read the 1st amendment you stupid fuckwads- i doubt that will change any minds. plus this has been blown completely out of proportion, and i dont want to add any fuel to the fire.
so, here is my first draft. it has to be fairly short, but there is plenty of room to add to this.

one would hope that the members of this board base their decisions on facts, law and the needs of constituents. none of these things depend on intervention of the almighty, whichever almighty you might believe in.

many people think that our laws come out of the basics of decency put forth in the 10 commandments. but there is nothing special about the xtian 10. these same guides to morality at included in most world religions. because they do not come down from the sky. they spring from the basic sense of fairness and decency from which springs the ability of the human animal to live in groups and get along and govern themselves. the central tenant of that is to regulate our behavior w a consideration of it's impact on the whole.

to start the meeting w prayer is to deny that simple truth that we are here to be our brother's keeper, not our god's servant.

thoughts?

[Cartoonist]

1. I like it

The problem with theists though is that they have faith, and that trumps facts, God's law takes precedence, and they think Jesus fits the needs of constituents.

[Freelancer]

2. Very good, IMO

I've always tried to emphasize our commonality.

We have arrived at a set of shared preferences -- things that please us as humans, and other things we seek to limit in order to advance general happiness. That commonality of purpose is what government represents -- not the particulars of how it was arrived-at. That we have come together to sustain our community is such a positive thing. Why sully such a lofty intention with rhetoric designed to promote division?

[defacto7]

3. I think it's fine if you're not trying to convince strong believers.

It's a great way to press the non-believers point but I'd be careful with a few words that might be considered button pushing.

For instance:

I'd replace almighty with a simple reference to God because they would use the word almighty very seriously, you are not. They would pick up on that and could be insulted.

The reference to the xtian 10 might give them a reason to discredit the statement because the 10 commandments is an old testament reference not Christian.

The reference coming down from the sky could be taken as belittling. Maybe say, they don't come from any one ideology...

The reference to the human animal can be a real problem for believers. I wouldn't say it unless you don't mind insulting them or they're really progressive. You might just say human beings.

The last statement is true... to us... but not to the believer. It may just cause them to vote against you because it makes their point not yours. You migh say... to start the meeting w prayer is to deny our resposibility for each other. It is to deny our adherence to our constitution. When we respect the separation of church and state at all levels of govenment we show respect for all citizens wherever their heart may lead them.

[mopinko]

4. nobody is really in a situation to be a belligerent here.

the defenders are in the place of having to defend the prayer, but at the same time to pretend it is just a quaint old practice that does no harm.

[defacto7]

5. Ah, I see. Good luck. I'm definitely on your team.

[rurallib]

6. I might add just a little to the line

"these same guides to morality at (are?) included in most world religions." that kind of concedes that morality is tied to religion, which it isn't.

I might add "and great non-religious philosophies ancient and modern"

[trof]

7. I think the word is 'tenet', not tenant.