Here we go again!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/1...county-christian-only-prayer-is-illegal0.html
From what I gather, the "Christian only" part is only because no one else prayed other type prayers.
So a nutty court, mis-applied the First Amendment in my opinion, and the real result of this is going to be that the Right of Free Exercise is denied.
What will likely happen now is that there will be no prayer at the meetings. Does that make it better for anyone? Only to those with a grudge on their shoulder toward religion, I think. And I suspect that was the intent of the guy behind the suit all along.
When my daughter was in elementary school they would read "inspiration" at the PTA meetings. Never religious, typically really artsy fartsy stuff that had everyone's eyes rolling. But I didn't complain, it didn't hurt me. But there again...I didn't have a chip on my shoulder.
Back to the ruling...I honestly don't believe this was what the people behind the First Amendment intended.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/1...county-christian-only-prayer-is-illegal0.html
From what I gather, the "Christian only" part is only because no one else prayed other type prayers.
So a nutty court, mis-applied the First Amendment in my opinion, and the real result of this is going to be that the Right of Free Exercise is denied.
What will likely happen now is that there will be no prayer at the meetings. Does that make it better for anyone? Only to those with a grudge on their shoulder toward religion, I think. And I suspect that was the intent of the guy behind the suit all along.
When my daughter was in elementary school they would read "inspiration" at the PTA meetings. Never religious, typically really artsy fartsy stuff that had everyone's eyes rolling. But I didn't complain, it didn't hurt me. But there again...I didn't have a chip on my shoulder.
Back to the ruling...I honestly don't believe this was what the people behind the First Amendment intended.
