Greensboro Prayer Warriors

There have been some interesting discussions over the last week or so regarding Mayor Knight's decision to have an invocation at the beginning of every City Council meeting.  There have been threads here, at Cone's, and at the News and Record site. 

One commenter voiced the opinion that the Mayor did not foresee that this policy would engender some opposition.  I know that is not the case.  I had an opportunity to speak with Mayor Knight about a month ago, and he told me of his plan for the prayers at council meetings.  He was quite aware that some would oppose it; but he felt it was the right thing to do.

Several months ago, I ran a series of posts about the Manhattan Declaration.  Part of the weighty Declaration spoke to issues regarding religious liberty.  While prayer at governmental meetings was not a focus of the Declaration, it nevertheless contains some language that is instructive:

No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions...

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded.

So what, in a nutshell, are the bases for the concern about the invocations Knight is implementing?  We saw the concerns expressed in the threads, and have heard it all before.  Prayer is not the council's business; and "religion" ought not be mixed with the state.  It will distract the council from its work on legitimate items like the budget.  The city will have to defend itself in court.  Our constitution, after all, is secular.  The prayers will be too sectarian.  People are not going to like the versions of religion that will emerge in the stated prayers.  Being non-sectarian will be too hard, and will water down the prayers too much. 

In spite of all the hand-wringing, what Knight has proposed is perfectly legal if it is done in a non-sectarian manner.

But what is really the basis for all the concern?  I think there is a deep-rooted fear that this type of activity will give a forum to Christians of orthodox belief; and will create an appearance a bit unpleasing to those whose sympathies are more secularistic.

We need to understand that atheists and agnostics might have some concerns with this policy.  But there is another group that also will object.  It is the much larger group of individuals who maintain some religious affiliation or identification; and who may be part of certain liberal churches, denominations or religious traditions.  They don't want those dreaded fundamentalists to get too much of a foothold.

But here is the irony.  Bill Knight, in his personal life, is part of a liberal denomination.  He attends a United Methodist church.  Recall that, when Obamacare was passed, Nancy Pelosi thanked the national United Methodist church for its support.  In any case, Mayor Knight is not even remotely part of that cabal on the religious right we are all supposed to fear.

But among the more liberal congregations and church traditions, secularism is often embraced.  Their leaders and their people will oft tend to look down on expressions or acknowledgments of religious belief in the public sphere.  That is probably why the Godless Americans were attracted to the candidacy of Kay Hagan, who attends one particular liberal church locally.  And they maintain this fastidious aversion to public acknowledgments or expressions of religious belief-- even as they press their religious worldview in the public sphere to achieve certain relativistic and/or socialistic outcomes.

I noted in the thread over at Ed's that at least several of those who objected to Mayor Knight's policy were Jewish.  And there has certainly been a history of Jewish advocacy for secularism over the last century in the United States.  And I think this is based, at least in part, upon a deep-seated fear of being hurt or marginalized by an overtly Christian culture.  We must remember that the Jewish people have been hurt at least once or twice in their history, in other less hospitable places.

But Michael Medved explains why Jewish fear of publicly vibrant Christianity is misplaced.  The Jewish people have tended to do very well in the United States; and have overall been accepted in a special way, in a nation that until very recently was culturally Christian. 

Prayer, however, ought not be feared.  Yes, there is a legal risk if the city does not handle the situation correctly.  But we ought not underestimate the potential benefits of prayer.

Those with an authentic faith tend to believe that prayer can be very helpful.  Bringing certain requests or supplications before a monotheistic God can have certain impacts.  If a member of the clergy genuinely asks God to do certain things, there can be two outcomes.  Either He will answer those prayers, or He won't. 

But again, if we truly harbor an authentic faith, then it seems we would not want to rob our city of any blessings or benefits that might accrue from God's intervention. 

Here are some things I said during a previous thread:

"I think praying to a monotheistic God is a great thing. Clergy can ask Him to fill our leaders with wisdom. They can ask him to bless our city, and to guide the council's deliberations. There would be nothing wrong with those types of supplications.

"And I don't object to clergy having to operate within certain ground rules. Think about what clergy have had to do in totalitarian countries to make things work where there is limited freedom of religion! (It is just a shade less totalitarian when prayers have to be limited in the USA because of the PC crowd.) :)

"I think prayer is a good thing, and earnestly seeking God's blessings on the workings of the council and the city can only be helpful. One other thing Jesus said: "Wherever two or three..."

"(The goal of a council prayer would be) to focus the attention of attendees and viewers on the act of bringing certain requests before God regarding our city and its leaders. Many of us believe that prayer can be efficacious; and if it is, as we believe, then it can be a very good thing.

"In a broader context, it is an acknowledgement of our dependence, and even indicative of our submission, to Him; and some would argue that has value as well. Focusing on a God who is intrinsically good can also set a more positive tone for that which follows."

One final thought.  I have repeatedly asked what objective, verifiable, discrete harm would result from invocations at the beginning of the council meetings.  No one has been able to produce even one example.  The mere fact that someone doesn't like it-- or that someone claims to be offended-- are not sufficient reasons to suspend the activity.  We need to remember that previous city councils did plenty that citizens disliked, and they were not deterred.

My concern is that the opposition to Knight's policy may be rooted in prejudice, and may be motivated by a desire to restrict religious liberty.  That would be awful.

Comments

[Brandon Burgess]

"I have repeatedly asked what objective, verifiable, discrete harm would result from invocations..."

--This will probably be the last time I comment on the issue. I consider myself an atheist. That being said, I do not feel threatened in any way by allowing community leaders to open council meetings with invocations.

That being said, I think Knight would do well to reverse his decision. While I feel that such invocations can only do good by signaling the serious nature of the business at hand and promoting a sense of unity, the issue has obviously divided the community and it gives people something else to deal with at a time when we need to be engaged with the budget, police issues and many other things.

[cheripickr]

"the issue has obviously divided the community".
Has it really?

[Brandon Burgess]

It gives folks something else to complain about with regard to Knight; something that has nothing to do with his job performance; another "sensitivity" issue. I'm not sure the perceived benefits of non-sectarian prayer are worth the flack he will catch. Of course, the ones I hear yelling the loudest wouldn't support Knight no matter what he does, so...

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

No, Cheri, it hasn't. Not really.

I would submit that truly tolerant community cannot be "divided" or "threatened" by genuine/sincere/heartfelt prayer (on anyone's part) - only inspired and united.

Joe, if you've not already read it, I'd like to recommend a book to you. "Nightmare Along Pennsylvania Avenue" by Perry Stone. I'm reading it now.

[Ed Cone]

Joe,

You overlook the powerful role that deeply religious people have played in separating religion and the state.

And your logic gets a little tangled -- the argument against government-sponsored prayer is not that it privileges the "dreaded fundamentalists" -- if anything, this kind of non-sectarian prayer is more likely to please some of the "liberal" church-goers than religious conservatives -- and, in fact, I've seen comments to the effect that this kind of prayer is highly unsatisfying.

If this is done according to form, it will involve a series of people from different faiths leading vague invocations. Sooner or later, in this diverse city, one of those leaders is likely to be a Muslim, or a Wiccan (a rabbi is pretty much a given in this town). That might be interesting to see.

And I'll be against all of that, too.

Not because I'm against a religion, or all religion, or against the Mayor, or dread fundamentalists, and not because I think it's a harbinger of theocracy, but because it goes against my understanding of how our government should operate.

And I'll be against all of that, too.

Not because I'm against a religion, or all religion, or against the Mayor, or dread fundamentalists, and not because I think it's a harbinger of theocracy, but because it goes against my understanding of how our government should operate.

[Bubba]

".....it goes against my understanding of how our government should operate."

Now that's interesting.

From past experience on other issues regarding government, you certainly haven't complained about the theocracy and doctrine the Church of Secular Humanism seeks to impose on the rest of us.

So why the concern now?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Ed, I think YOU are overlooking a lot of things too - pertaining to the history and heritage of this nation. Perhaps things should not be done "according to form". And if it is, so what?

Bring on the "interesting" (the Muslims, the Wiccans and the Rabbis) and their invocations, and let's see how it shakes out.

OBTW, a whole lot of things have gone against my understanding of how our government (and journalism) should operate (we're talking about the very basics here) and all you/your pals have done have sneered and spit.

Forgive me now if I cannot get worked up over what the great Cone is against.

[Spag]

As I pointed out on his own site, Ed's "understanding" of how our government should operate has been rejected by the Supreme Court when they upheld non-sectarian prayers, so any claims he makes based on law are just wrong. Therefore his continued objections must be rooted in something else that he hasn't told us or has previously denied.

[Abner Doon]

Should a preacher who gives an invocation then advocate for public spending on secualar priorities?

How should the jewish folks explain to their kids when a a priest says "in Jesus' name we pray" at an American public function?

How is America the land of the free if one religion dominates 90% of the invocations?

Are communities who lean towards religion infused government more or less likely to pass religious based prohibitions on matters of privacy like abortion or homosexuality?

Should elected lawmakers avoid imposing religious views on the rest of society?

Why did many white religious and political institutions teach congregants that God supported racial segregation?

Why are weak governments more likely to embrace religion or nationalism in times of social instability?

Is God on the side of Greensboro's City Council?

Does the Mayor want to imply that God is advocating the Mayor's views?

Is America an agent of the Christian God?

Why did Christian governments who burned others on stakes believe Christ approved?

Do members of the KKK consider their organization a Christian one?

Was the Nazi party considered Christian by its membership?

Have Evangelical Christians been given a mandate from God to create a Christian state in America?

Should Christian values form the basis of America’s political system?

If Adam and Eve had Cane, Able and Seth, who did they marry?

Should pro-life taxpayers be obligated to fund the lives of unwanted children, their mothers and increased law enforcement costs?

Is life support God’s will, if taxpayer funded Medicare spends $100,000 keeping one patient on life support that could provide seeds and food for 10,000 starving others?

Has politically supported organized religion justified slavery, war and the status quo?

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty
to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation

It will preserve and defend those basic principles
on which our nation has been built

It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality
and the family as the basis of national life"

Adolf Hitler

[Abner Doon]

"Clergy can ask Him to fill our leaders with wisdom. They can ask him to bless our city, and to guide the council's deliberations."

"I think prayer is a good thing, and earnestly seeking God's blessings on the workings of the council and the city can only be helpful."

"(The goal of a council prayer would be) to focus the attention of attendees and viewers on the act of bringing certain requests before God regarding our city and its leaders."

Are you suggesting biblical interpretation should replace rational thought and the US and Constitution?

Should Obama consult with Reverend Wright on matters of State Security?

Should we check with the Pulpit Forum if it is OK to hire the next police chief?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

From the book I am currently reading:

"Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon . . .

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

- Abraham Lincoln, April 30th, 1963/National Day of Humiliation, Fasting & Prayer

Due respect, Abner, but I believe that (1) we learn from our history/the past, and (2) we live in times where all of us could stand to be both a little more humble and a little less silent about what we truly believe.

[michele]

Joe, my concern about PC prayer at Council is that some of the prayers may not meet the Biblical standard for prayer. It seems to me that the more theologically conservative position on this issue would be to have some hesitation about non-sectarian prayer. Anytime that one is asked to compromise in an area of faith (for example, being forbidden to speak the name of Jesus in prayer), serious consideration should be given before making a decision. I'm still praying and listening on this one.

As to what harm may come, I think of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!", Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before Me", and Acts 4:10-12, "...then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved", among others. We don't all worship or pray to the same god, and our God is clear that we are His alone. I am troubled at the thought of Christians participating in prayers to other gods.

[cheripickr]

Somebody smoked some serious stuff at 11:24 last night.

[David Hoggard]

"He was quite aware that some would oppose it; but he felt it was the right thing to do."

This is not good news for me.

Previously, at Ed's place, I wrote my assumption that the Mayor proposed the change from a moment of silence to prayer out of instinct because he lives his life through prayer and that he may not have realized it would be a divisive issue. Now I read that he did, in fact, realize the move would be divisive.

To what end did Mayor Knight knowingly create ANY KIND of divisiveness among Greensboro's citizens? Does he believe his place in Jesus' bosom more secure by wearing his convictions on his sleeve? Was his intent for all of Greensboro to better understand the depth of his convictions through his 'I-could-care-less-what-others-think' efforts to demonstrate his disdain for a simple moment of silence that perfectly suited the occasion - without dissent - for as long as I can remember?

Upon reading of his thought process prior to making this change, I now believe it was a selfish proclamation.

I'm agreeing more and more with Brandon now that I read of your premeditate conversation with the Mayor, Joe. Mayor Knight should be focusing on unifying and leave alone things that he well knows will unnecessarily divide.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Michelle, while I would stand silently while someone of another faith (say a Wiccan or a Muslim) prayed - out of tolerance and respect for that person, I would not be praying "with" him/her. I would probably actually be silently praying to Someone Else. In other cases, God might be getting stereo - just with the volume turned down on one side.

As noted before, I've done it before: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2008/01/by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them.html

If it helps Maynor Knight to say a prayer BEFORE he conducts government business, then let him say the prayer and get on with business.

I am more troubled by Christians acquiescing to silence and passivity every time they are challenged or told to shut up and sit down because a Carpenter from Gallilee/his teachings "offends" someone.

I am also troubled by the very clear results of God being thrown out of our schools and His Name slowly & methodically stripped from and/or covered on our government buildings and memorials . . . and His Son's Name never mentioned/invoked in a public forum as if It were something dirty and to be ashamed of.

It seems to me to be a form of denial. And because of what I have been through over the last twelve years . . . at the hands of people-charged-with-the-public-good professing to be Christians - while spitting on every noble/ethical notion I was raised/educated to believe (as Abner noted, that was Hitler's style) . . . it feels like the worst kind of denial (mixed in with a huge dose of hubris).

It may not be politically-correct, but I believe this nation has paid a very high price for taking God out of our equation . . . for watering Him down to the "non-sectarian" . . . and will continue to pay for it.

Now, Cone and Polinsky and Hoggard and the rest can call people like me every ugly name in the book - tell us we're selfish and crazy and stupid and ignorant morons and purveyors of division amongst the common man.

(1) It's just not true. And (2) That was prophesized too.

You-all have a nice Memorial Day weekend.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks for all the comments. And Mary, I agree.

[cheripickr]

Damn well put MJ, esp the stereo-volume analogy.

[Abner Doon]

How is this not a free, publicly funded advertisment for whatever preacher gets to give the invocation?

How does the selection process work?

How about an agnostic invocation?

Does the mayor get to pick who says what?

Should priests bring in business from getting on public TV?

Are non clergy going to get to play?

Should the Pat Robertson types who milk savings from the old folks get to speak with the endorsement of Greensboro City Council?

Should the preachers who get to spout be considered on God's side?

How about Ted Haggert?

How about a couple Catholic pedophiles?

How about some clergy that link natural disasters to mortal sin?

[Janetmitchell@mac.com]

I am wondering why council members of whatever faith cannot offer a prayer to their God during the moment of silence?

[Joe Guarino]

Oh, they can, Janet. But a spoken prayer is more impactful in terms of focusing everyone's attention. No one would be compelled to participate, but it would help set a better tone for the meeting from the outset.

And here is the big thing. If it is done legally, there is no objective, discrete, measurable harm done with the spoken prayer. And it might actually yield some additional benefits.

And for all the people who regard themselves as believers, and who protest, presumably their clergy will get their turn.

[Whom]

Council Members can't endorse thier church's in a moment of silence.

The preachers can't bring in an extra paycheck after a moment of silence.

Council Members can't be blessed, which can be construed as acting in the name of God, after a moment of silence.

Clergy and Polititians play the same game. They leach of the collective teat for their income.

Preachers promise life after death for monatary compensation in the presant.

Polititians promise a swimming pool for the wealthy and connected who fund the campaign war chests.

[Abner Doon]

"And for all the people who regard themselves as believers, and who protest, presumably their clergy will get their turn."

Let's not forget the largest "denomination" are agnostics.

Who are the agnostic's clergy?

Does it have to be a member of the clergy?

Can I not have to pay money to a church to be represented at a City Council Meeting?

Why is a priest more qualified than anyone else to do an invocation?

[michele]

If I was a Christian pastor (which I wouldn't be, because I'm not a man), and I was asked to say a prayer at City Council, I would say it in the name of Jesus. I might not be asked back, but this is America. I wouldn't be shot.

And Joe, I wouldn't stand silently "out of respect" while someone prays to another god. I don't "respect" any god but the One God. I absolutely respect people's right to choose another faith (even though it breaks my heart for them), but I am definitely not going to stand there out of "respect" while they pray. That's messed up. (And I wouldn't expect them to stand there while I pray.) I'd have to walk away until they were done. I want to be real, not politically correct.

[Whom]

"this is America. I wouldn't be shot."

Dear Michele,

Nazi Germany wasn't until it was.

My Great Grandfather took one between the eyes in front of my Great Grandmother on the street in front of their mushroom stand for being a Jew.

Our family used to occupy a mountain range, and now I've got a couple cousins in Philly.

So someone who says X in the name of Jesus raises multiple red flags for people like me.

"I am definitely not going to stand there out of "respect" while they pray."

Think about how I thought about that when I read it, relative to the way you thought when you wrote it.

[Joe Guarino]

Whom, I can understand how that type of background creates a dramatic familial memory, a cultural memory, that is transmitted from one generation to the next. And I can understand how it can shape perceptions.

But you are in America now. I don't think those types of fears or feelings or perceptions should be controlling or dispositive with respect to how we do things.

Abner, the agnostics probably would not be represented in this endeavor, and that is OK, because if you doubt the existence of God, then you doubt the efficacy of prayer.

Michele, as I mentioned in another thread, Jesus taught us to pray without invoking His name when He gave us the Lord's Prayer. Everyone will have their own level of "tolerance" with respect to the kinds of prayers in which they feel they could share. But that does not invalidate the whole program.

Does anyone else wonder if Whom is the same guy as Abner?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I'm back to respond to Michelle (I'm a little bit disappointed in the "messed-up" remark), but most specifically to "Whom" (responding to her):

"Think about how I thought about that when I read it, relative to the way you thought when you wrote it."

Whom/Michelle, I have thought about it:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/05/holy-white-noise.html

I'm done with noise and the threads. You-all have a good weekend.

[Roch101]

"But a spoken prayer is more impactful in terms of focusing everyone's attention." -- Joe

It is not the government's role to impactfully focus my attention (or yours) on a religious act. If the prayer is just as effective silent or spoken and the only reason to make it audible is to have an effect on "everyone," that is more worthy of the Taliban than America.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, this is just an invocation. No one is representing that it is a central role of government to have an opening prayer. It is merely a preparatory step.

[michele]

Mary, I read your thoughtful post. Amen on "don’t tell me how to pray - in ANY venue." Sorry for all the noise coming from me on this one. But the upside: I've spent more time in prayer and in the Word because of it. I hope you have a restful, blessed weekend. :)

[Whom]

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally
it means they have not a single political argument left"

Margaret Thatcher

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Thank you, Michelle. There is no need to apologize. As noise goes, you make the least of all of us. And ditto.

Not all arguments are political - or " personal attacks".

Hosea 8:7 (very appropriate to this topic): For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.

The Epistle of Paul to the Galations (KJV) 6: 7 (very appropriate to this blogosphere): Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

A safe Memorial Day weekend to all.

[Abner Doon]

Great thread Joe.

Believe it or not, I do believe in the efficacy of praying for others, as long as they know they're being prayed for.

My life would be much less complicated if I had been blessed with Faith.

I envy those who posses the ability to believe in something beyond, and divine intervention, and something omnipotent that is looking out for us.

For me, something started everything, but beyond that, there is only supposition.

And a lot of history is stained with the powerfull using a divintiy to control the masses for selfish means.

If there is no certainty of post-mortem consciousness, enjoy present thought,and inhale and exhale, over and over, for as long as you can

"The secret of happiness is freedom

The secret of freedom is courage"

Thucydides

[Roch101]

It is not the government's role, central or otherwise, to impactfully focus my attention, or yours, on a religious exercise. Theocracies do that.

[Roch101]

And another thing: George, man up, dude.

[David Hoggard]

"...man up, dude."

No kidding!

With that many questions, it could only be George or Socrates.

And Mary: I have no intention, desire, or reason to call you names - ugly or otherwise. We, and others here, just have a simple disagreement.

[George Hartzman]

After the election I used names other than my own because some were still in partisan hate mode, and it didn't matter what I said.

Onward...

[Roch101]

How about a declarative sentence in your own words once in a while? Or are your enemies to legion for that too?

[David Hoggard]

".....it didn't matter what I said."

But George, you hardly ever "say" anything - you ask never-ending questions. I don't get it. Really, I don't. It's just a weird method of (non)communication.

I, too, would appreciate a declarative sentence from you now and again. You might start with something simple, like: "I have a phobia about issuing declarative sentences." And then start questioning yourself as to why that is.

And the many names are due to "partisan hate mode"?!?... Really?

[cheripickr]

"How about a declarative sentence in your own words once in a while?
You hardly ever "say" anything - you ask never-ending questions."

Leave Roch alone. he's got enough enemies already.

[George Hartzman]

Roch,

If I agreed with you most of the time, we’d both be wrong a lot.

I believe that would be declarative.

A good deal of what I write I use to teach with. The idea is to get others to say the answers as opposed to me declaring them. Look at some of the posts on Greensboro and Guilford County Budgets and Politics and imagine going through them in a class at the Shepards Center or a CPA continuing education course.

The idea is to stir the kettle and let the class have at with each other as I moderate.

It can be great fun.

"And the many names are due to "partisan hate mode"?!?... Really?"

Right after the election, yes. I don't think so now, but I was having fun with it.

Have you ever been someone else?

I wonder how many of those sitting in pews with Joe on Sunday wouldn 't be there if they didn't have to pose as someone they're not.

I didn't know my Grandfather didn't believe until his funeral. Kept an orthodox Kosher house for Grandma only because he loved her and didn't want to disapoint.

He'd sneak my brother and I out for oysters on the halfshell.

[concerned citizen]

A quick check shows that almost all NC cities and county commissioners begin meetings with an invocation. Asheville, Burlington, High Point, Winston-Salem, Lexington, Charlotte, Greenville, Wilmington, Raleigh, Reidsville, Salisbury begin their council meetings with an invocation. In several cities a member of council renders the invocation. The same can be said for counties. Check adjoining states and some larger cities and you will find the same. New York City and Chicago council meetings begin with an invocation.

[Jon A Firebaugh]

Answering Abner's post of 5-27 11:24PM

1. no
2. Tell them Jesus was a Jew
3. Is Norway less free because 90% are native born Norwegians?
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. They were stupid
7. Duh!
8. Not confirmed
9. No
10. No
11. They were stupid
12. Unfortunately yes
13. Yes, but they were stupid
14. No
15. Please list values
16. God knows
17. No,No, and Yes
18. What do you think?
19. Yes

Answering Abner's post of 5-27 11:42PM

1. No
2. No
3. No

Answering cheripicker's post of 5-28 1:19AM

Mostly legitimate questions so far cheri

Answering Abner's post of 5-28 11:26AM

1. Who cares?
2. Who cares?
3. Do it
4. No
5. Who cares?
6. See #3
7. City residents only
8. You decide
9. See #7
10. See 1st amendment
11. See 1st amendment

Answering Abner's post of 5-28 11:53AM

1. You tell me
2. See #1
3. Bad sentence structure but I think No
4. Not IMHO.

Answering Roche post of 5-28 2:50PM

"If the prayer is just as effective silent or spoken and the only reason to make it audible is to have an effect on "everyone," that is more worthy of the Taliban than America."

It is absolutely true that if a silent prayer is just as effective as a spoken prayer then there is no reason to speak a prayer except to control the prayer that everyone hears. Thesis: A is as effective as B or A effect=B effect A = silent prayer B = spoken prayer A = outcome bliss B = outcome solidarity If B affects everyone then A affects everyone. A outcome = bliss for all B outcome = solidarity for all. Thought control at work?

Answering Abner's post of 5-29 12:05PM

Amen

Answering Abner's (George comes out of the closet) post of 5-29 12:28PM

Amen

By the way keep up the good work.

Answering David Hoggards post of 5-29 1:14PM

What makes a question less communicative than a statement, if pertinent to the issue discussed? Most bad decisions are made because the pertinent questions either weren't asked, were ignored, or were never answered.

[cheripickr]

Firebaugh, I've often thought it, but now I'm gonna say it: You are a fireball.

[George Hartzman]

Thanks Jon

[Brandon Happy as Hell Burgess]

Just wanted to say I've always enjoyed Mr. Hartzman's style. Keep it up. It works.

[cheripickr]

If you're happy and you know it...

[Brandon Burgess]

Sorry Joe. I wasn't paying attention to the signature.

[Roch101]

"If I agreed with you most of the time, we’d both be wrong a lot. I believe that would be declarative." -- Who me?

That's hilarious! It reinforces our perception that you are incapable of putting anything in your own words. David is right, your "communication" is ineffective and it's crapping up what used to be a good blog at Triad Watch -- a place where one used to be able to go for some well-researched facts put into some relevant context instead of the week-minded, wishy-washy, intentionally non-committal insinuations you've brought to it.

[George Hartzman]

Roch,

I was kidding.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

George, if it's any consolation, I thought your kidding was just hilarious. I have no other perceptions about it.

And Jon . . . smiling.

Continue with your safe holiday weekend, folks . . .