The decision by U.S. District Judge Harry S. "Sandy" Mattice not to issue a temporary injunction to stop weekly prayers at Hamilton County Commission meetings is not the final word on the issue. The Wednesday ruling does give, on the surface at least, some hope to both plaintiffs and defendant in the case.
Those who approve of the commission's weekly prayers can argue that Mattice's ruling supports their stand because it allows the invocations to continue. Those who believe the prayers should be stopped can say that the failure to issue an injunction does not doom their case. They point out — correctly — that the judge's ruling indicates that the case raises complex and serious constitutional issues that still must be considered and then addressed.
The decision to allow the prayers to continue, in fact, does not address the merits of the case filed by Tommy Coleman and Brandon Jones in June after commissioners refused to honor their request to hold a moment of silence instead of prayers. Wednesday's ruling simply says the request for a temporary injunction did not meet the necessarily high legal standards for such a request to be granted.
The far more important portion of Mattice's multipage ruling suggests that the commission has chosen a difficult path to follow in creating its current policy on public prayer before its meetings. The judge wrote that the county created a policy "authorizing some denominational prayer while taking care to ensure that its public recitation does not proselytize listeners, advance one religion or disparage another, or otherwise affiliate the government with any specific faith.
"In so choosing," he continued, "it has assumed — on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of Hamilton County — the responsibility of ensuring that its policy is implemented in a manner that respects both the rights of citizens and the commands of the First Amendment. Whether it will actually affect its policy in such a fashion has yet to be seen."
That remains the crux of the case. Coleman and Jones say they plan to appeal Wednesday's ruling. That, of course, is their right, but many court observers believe an appeal is unlikely to be successful. Indeed, the judge wrote that "litigation will proceed on the merits of Plaintiffs Complaint". If that proves the case, the case likely will move forward in October.
The commission's latest prayer policy may or may not meet the strict mandates of the law governing legislative prayer. County commissioners clearly believe they have a policy in place that meets the standard. The plaintiffs argue to the contrary. The court will decide which side is correct.
Precedent, however, is clear. The law strongly supports traditions of religious freedom and the right to private prayer. It does not sanction officially supported and conducted prayers in public government meetings like a commission meeting. County commissioners could have resolved the issue by ordering a silent prayer or no prayer at all before meetings. They chose not to do so, preferring instead to rewrite policy to suit a constituency largely in favor of public and even sectarian prayer.
Whether that is a violation of the law and a potentially costly mistake for Hamilton County taxpayers ultimately will be determined at trial.
related articles »
The two men suing Hamilton County over prayers held at commission meetings have appealed a local federal judge's ruling that ...
An order by U.S. District Judge Harry S. "Sandy" Mattice refusing to temporarily halt Hamilton County Commission prayers likely will ...
Plaintiffs Tommy Coleman and Brandon Jones plan to appeal U.S. District Judge Harry S. “Sandy” Mattice’s decision not to issue ...
U.S. District Judge Harry S. "Sandy" Mattice plans to release his decision Wednesday morning on a motion for preliminary injunction ...
As a preacher of mine once said, "Unless a prayer comes from the heart it goes about as high as a lead balloon."
So Christians have to pay taxes to pay for policies to which we object, but atheists want to dictate silence for us? Let us pray for them.
The lawsuit will go forward. Only two possible conclusions.
The lawsuit will be settled before trial with prayer eliminated at commission meeting.
If it goes to trial the verdict will be in plaintiffs favor. Commission will lose, but grandstanding by politicians will reach new level to get votes from constituents. Money will be lost by Hamilton County in defending illegal and immoral actions.
Either way, the plaintiffs will prevail, and the Hamilton County Commission will look like podunk politicians.
AndrewLohr said... So Christians have to pay taxes to pay for policies to which we object, but atheists want to dictate silence for us? Let us pray for them.
Obviously, you don't understand the difference between someone acting in the capacity of government and a private citizen. Why should anyone's taxes pay for anything, or allow one religion to do anything? It is not government's job to push YOUR religion. Why does YOUR religion solicit in the first place? Can it not stand on it's own like all the other religions? Don't you see that is the point? It can't. And if it ever makes it to the pedestal, it will be torn apart by other religions that can prove their facts. It seems you are spouting against your own best interest. That is why you see so many of the churches denounce your stance and want the wall of separation to remain intact. It is not just followers of other religions or none, that want YOU to keep YOUR religion out of our government. Why don't you try praying on the street corner, in the court house, anywhere you wish. But when an official that YOU and I both have hired through tax payer money is the one pushing or soliciting religion, it is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. If you cannot see that, then might I suggest you engage the litmus test. I somehow doubt that if this were Islamic prayers that you would be crying foul. If government can solicit a religion through government sponsored prayer, (meaning we all paid the coach to push his religious views), can't the government alter the religion to suit the needs of the many? I don't think the answer is "would they"? It is more likely that they would and the question becomes, "what would government do with it"? If your favorite politicians are the ones in charge, then no problem for you. But the way our local, state, and federal entities are being bankrupted, we are ripe for a foreign buyout, from Islamic elite, like Saudi. If religion is in government, it would only be a matter of them changing policy. You see Andrew, THIS is the point. Are you ready for your religion to change, morph, or die? Separation of Church and State protects YOU, as well as anyone else from government intrusion into our personal lives. I would appreciate your not being a cheerleader for bigger intrusive government.
Free speech and free religious practice are mortal threats to atheistic statist regimes. Keep praying, commissioners. Long live the First Amendment.
whats_wrong_with_the_world said...
"Free speech and free religious practice are mortal threats to atheistic statist regimes."
Neither free speech or free religious practice are a threat to atheists. I value both.
But not religious practices in government offices, government meetings, and public schools.
How do free speech and free religious practice threaten me? Do you envision me all of a sudden changing my position and becoming a theist just because you choose to go to church?
On the other hand, a well reasoned, persuasive argument with data to support its conclusions is a very real "threat"! I might actually have to change my position on some topic when confronted by it, yet you don't see atheists protesting research or forbidding schools from teaching critical thinking skills do you?
whats_wrong_with_the_world said... Free speech and free religious practice are mortal threats to atheistic statist regimes.
WWWTW sees regimes. LOL That is so funny! It is hard to spot free thinkers in this area of the bible belt, but regimes, it seems, are easy to find. Free thinkers around here don't usually put themselves out there. We know all too well the bias we get when shopping, working, or anything else. Wonder where all these regimes can be found? Still rolling on the floor with laughter!
The first admentment gives us all freedom of speech, but it does not give government freedom of speech. When an individual is acting in the capacity of government, they cannot solicit or push any religion. I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the specific religion of Christianity feels the need to solicit.
But tell me WWWTW, will you stand up and fight for the right of your fellow muslim neighbor to pray to Allah for the sake of all of our sins in our county commissioner's meetings? Gee, will you even fight for their right to pray on the street corner? Didn't think so. You advocate giving freedoms away, even your own, because you don't understand the constitution or the consequences to your actions. Please keep your hands off my freedoms. Your lack of knowledge isn't surprising, but it is disturbing.
JustOneWoman said... But tell me WWWTW, will you stand up and fight for the right of your fellow muslim neighbor to pray to Allah for the sake of all of our sins in our county commissioner's meetings?
Yes. The current policy allows them to do just that.
Gee, will you even fight for their right to pray on the street corner?
Yes. Will you pay them the respect of capitalizing the name of their religion?
daytonsdarwin said...
Neither free speech or (sic) free religious practice are a threat to atheists. I value both. But not religious practices in government offices, government meetings, and public schools.
God gave us our basic liberties. Theists recognized and enshrined them in our founding documents. And atheists will stop at nothing to deny those liberties until their own propaganda monopolizes public debate. Very un-American. No thanks. Keep praying, commissioners.
Fendrel said... How do free speech and free religious practice threaten me? Do you envision me all of a sudden changing my position and becoming a theist just because you choose to go to church? On the other hand, a well reasoned, persuasive argument with data to support its conclusions is a very real "threat"! I might actually have to change my position on some topic when confronted by it, yet you don't see atheists protesting research*
I see atheists limiting research to fit their biases all the time. And I see you offering NO data to support your conclusions. Ever.
or forbidding schools from teaching critical thinking skills do you?
Yes, I do. Atheists could care less about literacy and math, much less the critical thinking skills they foster. They simply want zombies, suckers for catchy campaign slogans and ad jingles. Hope (borrow). Change (spend).
Proof of God? none
Proof of resurrection? none
Proof of miracles? none
Proof of talking serpents and donkeys, Noah's ark, water into wine, angels, demons, Satan, hell, heaven? none, none, none.
The Bible as proof of Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spook makes as much sense as the Wizard of Oz does for Dorothy, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow (though the story is better written and a lot more fun).
So show me your proof. That should be easy enough since you claim it's all around. Imagine it's a criminal trial where evidence is required. Hearsay not admitted, just evidence.
You'll come off worse than William Jennings Bryan in Monkeytown.
I think I'll watch "Inherit the Wind" tonight. Read your Hitchens, Sagan, and Ingersoll.
I see atheists limiting research to fit their biases all the time.
examples, please
whats_wrong_with_the_world,
Can you please give me an example of an atheist wanting to limit research?
What conclusion did I offer that you require proof for?
Atheists want zombies? I can't think of anything further from the truth. I respect the opinions of many people I know who disagree with me on various topics. I respect their opinions because, while I might disagree with their conclusions, they have taken the time to think about and understand the issues and can provide facts or data to backup their beliefs. Please tell me what your facts are that substantiate your belief that atheists only want non-thinking zombies.
Here's your chance to gain a supporter, I'm all ears.
Daytonsdarwin,you just nailed it,it is grandstanding!!
All about being perceived as upstanding christian office holders doing the public's buis. while wasting taxpayer $$$ in a fight they know they can't win!! BTW: Fendrel, i hope you got lot of time to spend waiting for logic from them "true believers"!!
Jesse,
All the time in the world...at least this one!
I see atheists limiting research to fit their biases all the time.
examples, please
(crickets chirping)
Well, color me surprised.
Fendrel said... Please tell me what your facts are that substantiate your belief that atheists only want non-thinking zombies.
For starters: 1. The history of secular education theory for the past 200 years and its implementation in public schools. 2. The resultant dumbing down of curriculum and lowering of educational standards. Some studies show that students leave secular colleges with weaker critical thinking skills than when they entered. 3. The election (and likely re-election) of Barack Obama.
The history of secular education theory for the past 200 years and its implementation in public schools.
Connect to zombies and atheists please
Some studies show that students leave secular colleges with weaker critical thinking skills than when they entered
Please link these sources please
on Ozombies:
How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters by John Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gpU0RxqZkqM
“In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
“Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn't. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
on the alleged triumph of secularized higher education:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/academically-adrift-a-must-read/28423
Based on the Collegiate Learning Assessment test, the authors found that 46 percent of undergraduates demonstrated “no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills in the first two years of college, and 36 percent showed no progress in four years.”
The first post contained anecdotes only, and no comparison between religious and secular colleges, nor comparison between college education and the general public. The second post is misleading. 46 percent did not show improvement, meaning 54 % did. 36% showing no improvement shows that 74% did. In addition, it does not compare religious vs. secular.
BTW, you still need to show evidence that atheists "limit" research. Given that atheists make up such as small percentage of the population, it is amazing that we wield such formidable power and influence.
The issue is not secular vs religious. It is one-size-fits-all content based testing that public schools have to contend with. Some private schools do better because they are independent, not because they are religious. Critical thinking is not the goal of high stakes objective exams. In the colleges, some private colleges that are religious do well, others (BIOLA, Oral Roberts and Liberty U come to mind) are pretty poor. In secular state U's, some are terrific, some not so much. The really big ones will be known for certain subject areas, but may be weak in other subjects. Some of the very best colleges are extremely liberal (Swarthmore for example)
Or login with:
New Account